As is all over the blogs, Wolfgang Wagner has resigned as Editor of Remote Sensing, not so much because publishing Spencer and Braswell was a mistake in and of itself, but because of the way that Remote Sensing having accepted and published that provocation has been exploited. Wagner pulls no punches.
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 [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.This is actually a rather important answer to a question that John Nielsen Gammon posed to Roger Pielke Sr. about mole whacking
After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. 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” published by Forbes [4], and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News [5], to name just a few. Unfortunately, their campaign apparently was very successful as witnessed by the over 56,000 downloads of the full paper within only one month after its publication.
But trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible. Aside from ignoring all the other observational data sets (such as the rapidly shrinking sea ice extent and changes in the flora and fauna) and contrasting theoretical studies, such a simple conclusion simply cannot be drawn considering the complexity of the involved models and satellite measurements.
Unfortunately mole whacking has become a vital part of broader impacts and outreach for climate scientists and must be recognized, acknowledged and rewarded. Dr. Wagner has earned much respect for himself and for Remote Sensing. It will be necessary to publish strong refutations of the Spencer and Braswell papers and strongly link them to the paper asap. Andy?“Spencer’s paper”: It didn’t take my colleague Andrew Dessler long to work out a demonstration that Spencer’s new paper is wrong. Many of his colleagues have counselled against publishing this demonstration, arguing that the time wasted refuting yet another in a series of incorrect papers by the same author would be better spent advancing our knowledge about the climate system and that at some point it’s better just to ignore incorrect papers. I personally agree with you that an incorrect paper should be publicly refuted in the scientific literature, but I can see how it would get annoying to be working on one public refutation after another.
Well, the Guardian says that Andrew Dessler's paper will be coming out next week in GRL.
UPDATE: This is like crack to bloggers:
Big City Lib
Climate Abyss
Climate Progress
Deltoid
Only in it for the Gold
Our Changing Climate
Quark Soup
Stoat
More please
Much respect to Dr. Wolfgang Wagner, and kudos to Andrew Dessler and Roger Pielke Sr. for truly caring about the integrity of science, and about what gets into the scientific literature.
ReplyDeleteSo many moles to whack, so little time! ;)
A question from a naive non-scientist.
ReplyDeleteGiven the editor's statements, why wouldn't the Journal retract the paper?
IceMouse
Hey IceMouse,
ReplyDeleteI guess they could (and still can) retract the paper, but it has already passed their refereed review process and it is already 'out there' - very much so, since it has received WAY too much attention in the press, contains serious errors and has been way over-hyped by its authors.
Basically, BOTH that paper AND the refereed review process at Remote Sensing are broken - the latter possibly beyond repair. It is therefore justified (and very honourable) that Dr. Wagner takes responsibility.
Here is a snippet from Dr. Wagner's resignation editorial:
"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 [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published."
Please note:
- fundamental errors
- false claims
- most likely problematic in both aspects
"kudos to Andrew Dessler and Roger Pielke Sr. for truly caring about the integrity of science"
ReplyDeleteHmm, reading:
"kudos to Andrew Dessler and Roger Pielke Sr. for truly caring about the integrity of science" and reading:
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/roger-pielke-jr-s-inkblot/#comments
I don't quit understand the RPs mention. Say more.
Those IPCC gatekeepers sure do keep busy. Can they leap tall buildings and levitate, too?
ReplyDeleteDr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
ReplyDeleteThe good doctor is familiar with both doctors and submits that Dessler is a decade behind Spencer's work. Kerry Emmaneul who is 1 of 2 respectable scientists who believes in global warming, said Spencer's paper was good. The other credible scientist would be Isaac Held. And no, Eli. The good doctor knew these fine men well before Spencer referenced them, so don't accuse the good doctor of regurgitation.
Well, Roy Spencer has decided to ban me from his blog. That is hypocritical and ironic that he is censoring dissenting views given his unsubstantiated allegations against the IPCC. I'm hoping that our kind host here will allow me to reply to Roy's posts here.
ReplyDeleteSpencer also seems to be paranoid and/or delusional, because he thinks that I am Kevin Trenberth, I assure you that I am not. Just a concerned citizen.
Below is my reply to this comment by Roy:
"Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
September 2, 2011 at 1:33 PM
OMG! You did it again! Wentz & Mears discovered a correction that needed to be made, one which no one else would have ever thought of (orbital decay)…improvements in science like this happen all the time.
We have also found an error in THEIR processing, but we were gentlemen enough to let them know rather than writing a paper on it! And now THEIR temperatures are diverging COOLER than ours, and by a substantial amount! Have you noticed that?? It’s because their diurnal cycle correction is based on climate MODELS, which have notoriously bad diurnal cycles. (Ask Trenberth, whom you apparently rely on for talking points)."
My reply:
"Hello Roy,
You elected to miss the point entirely, and I'm not particularly interested in more obfuscation from you on this point.
The fact remains that you knew that your product was an outlier well before 2005 (Hurrell and Trenberth (1997) highlighted some potential problems with the MSU data), yet, at least initially it seems that you chose to believe that everyone else was wrong. Why? Only you know why, but I suspect it is because you liked the answer-- cooling versus warming. and there is good reason for saying that; Roy can you tell your readers where this quote comes from:
"Spencer’s article (“1995: The Warmest Year That Wasn’t”) relies, as expected, on the satellite data; he is the author of the famous Science paper that first showed the satellites weren’t finding any warming. It, too, is very well written.".
" You did it again! Wentz & Mears discovered a correction that needed to be made, one which no one else would have ever thought of (orbital decay)..."
Actually the Mears and Wentz (2005) wrote a paper speaking to the diurnal correction, a separate issue. Wentz and Schabel wrote a paper about the orbital decay in Nature 1998, you then wrote a paper in 2000 with Christy and Braswell in which you applied their correction (which you had been aware of since 1998 b/c Wentz and Schabel kindly provided you with a copy of their 1998 paper before it was published)-- so again after someone else had identified the problem and come up with a solution before you did.
Yes, correcting errors is an improvement to the science, but what you seem intent on ignoring is that said corrections did not initially come from you nor John."
He has still not answered questions posed to him about the potential reviewers of his flawed paper in Remote Sensing.
Sincerely,
Obscurity
@John Mashey,
ReplyDeleteHope springs eternal ;)
Ray Cadbury,
ReplyDeleteCan you please direct us to where Dr. Held stated that Spencer and Braswell (2011) is a good paper?
Eli,
ReplyDeleteI saw your comment over on Spencer's blog chiding him for not noticing the editor specifically mentioned the press release. You might want to also point out that he is relying on Tu Quoque arguments. (Rabetts are apparently made of sterner stuff than I, as I don't want to get my paws wet over there.)
Eli,
ReplyDeleteDid a post here in reply to Spencer by Obscurity somehow disappear?
Where is the other " satellites prove the earth is cooling clown " in all this ? Was he eaten by his mustache?
ReplyDeleteRumleyfips
Forbes has just come in from the cold by publishing Peter Gleick's rebuttal of James Taylor's original Spencerian hogwash .
ReplyDeleteMy own celebration of Wagner's editorial valor will appear shortly in The American Conservative.
Stay tuned to PBS tonight for some spluttering by the usual suspects at McLaughlin's teaparty
Hi, long posts fall into the Blogger spam barrel and marinate until Eli pulls them out. OBs comment should be above @ 1:45
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile in the no honor and dignity department, Steverino weighs in on the NSF IG's exoneration of Mann by proclaiming the NSF and NSF IG's office as corrupt enablers of Climategate. Steve is desperate for relevance at this point since he has increasingly been shown to be both mendacious and wrong.
ReplyDeletethought I had commented to the effect of how ignorable Spencer is, but maybe I only thought I had [or the comment when to the big bit bucket in the sky].
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Spencer certainly deserves to be ignored at this stage.
Also at the BBC:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574
h/t O A Bloke at RC
Pete Dunkelberg
Well, this is curious.
ReplyDeleteFirst Roy says this:
"Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
September 2, 2011 at 1:03 PM
The “gatekeeping” activities of IPCC scientists is indisputable, and has been reported on repeatedly (e.g. here).
re Q1: Almost every journal requires a list of suggested reviewers, and except for one reviewer, the identities of the reviewers chosen was unknown to us."
But later he says:
"Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
September 2, 2011 at 5:29 PM
Excuse me, but the peer reviewers were all researchers who have actually published on the subject of climate sensitivity. "
Seems to me that Roy is telling lies.
And who was that one reviewer that they did know the ID of? Lindzen?
Obscurity
Obscurity,
ReplyDeleteLet's see. Lindzen, Choi, Pielke Sr, who else can the bunnies name?
Greg Laden has one up too:
ReplyDeletehttp://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/09/cloudgate_denialism_gets_dirty.php
Wagner's done the editor's equivalent of throwing himself on a grenade, usefully.
ReplyDeleteLet's imagine that Wagner had done nothing more than write a sternly worded editorial, with some tut-tuts and guidance on how Remote Sensing will conduct itself into the future. Well and good, but the reverberations of Spencer's latest big turd splashing into the bowl of the more gullible stall of public opinion would continue, undamped; (why waste a good metaphor) the toilet containing Spencer's leavings would continue to stink in public, unflushed. Next month Dessler's rebuttal would be published in GRL, entirely unremarked in the press we can be sure.
Instead, thanks to Wagner's ritual self-obliteration as editor of Remote Sensing we've seen fairly thorough exposure of Spencer's mess reaching into the popular press, including advance notice of Dessler's upcoming publication. It's even possible that some journalist's hippocampus may yet function well enough to follow up on Dessler when the time comes.
Judging from Wagner's outraged remarks on Spencer's romp in the popular press, I have to think Wagner should feel pretty satisfied at this point that his gesture has not been a waste; Spencer played the press and Wagner has found he can press the keys as well, undoing some of Spencer's damage. All the press needs is spectacle, hopefully of a gossipy nature, and they're right on the job.
Maybe Dessler ought to do a press release next month, something to the effect of "Back atcha, Huntsville beeyotches." I bet the Heritage Foundation's PR shop are the usual bunch of ethically void tools of the trade; judging from results they could handle Dessler's account very efficaciously.
I think people are missing the very clear real reason for the resignation. Wagner said
ReplyDelete"The managing editor of Remote Sensing selected three senior scientists from renowned US universities, each of them having an impressive publication record."
Now the <a href="http://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing/editors/>managing editor</a>, Mr Elvis Wang, is an MPDI office man, and AFAIK not a scientist. But he's the boss. That's a pretty unusual way to choose referees. And when they all turn out to be sceptics, and don't pick up on all the stuff S&B aren't citing, then I think that's a classic situation where the position of the Editor-in-Chief can't continue.
Well, the managing editor selected them, but that doesn't mean they weren't suggested by Spencer.
ReplyDelete"Asked about Spencer's performance on Fox Business, MIT atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel said:
ReplyDelete"I cannot see how Spencer's statements to Fox are supported by his data. I must say I am disconcerted to hear him spinning his own work.""
Lou Dobbs Breaks His Promise To "Debunk Climate Change"
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThey probably were suggested by Spencer - the question is, how come the Editor in Chief is being told who his referees will be by the maanagement.
Nick Stokes probably nails it.
ReplyDeleteOK, Mr Wagner is imminently honorable and respectable.
ReplyDeleteBut his apparent unwillingness and/or inability to stand up to skeptic pranks get him my vote for scientific Obama of the month.
John Puma
Here is one explanation why Wagner resigned but the S&B paper was not retracted.
ReplyDeleteAs a piece of science considered out of any context the paper is simplistic and its conclusions mundane, but not wrong. I posted when it first appeared and after quick skim -
"izen says: July 29, 2011 at 3:52 am Shorter Spencer and Braswell.
We could not match ten years of real world data with significant ENSO events with model data that makes the assumption that over longer timescales the ENSO effect is neutral.
Over a ten year period ENSO variations were larger than AGW forcings so it was impossible to measure the positive feedback effects that might amplify the radiative forcing from higher CO2.
"
Undoubtedly it is a summary that could be improved, but I still think it stands as a defensible version of the extent of the claims made in the published PAPER.
The problem for Wagner as editor of Remote Sensing was that while the paper was relatively innocuous, subsequent publicity made it looked like Wagner and RS were credulous fools who had been scammed.
They had accepted a paper somewhat off-topic for their journal which did not appear to make any dramatic claims, but then found that publicity, the unkind might call it hype, and commentary about the paper went FAR further in its claims than is justified by the contents or conclusions of the paper.
It is this massive discrepancy between the content of the published paper and the claims made for it that resulted in Wagner concluding that the RS journal had damaged its reputation because of his decision to publish a paper that was then exploited to make claims beyond its range or remit. Either the journal and editor are complicit in this campagin of misrepresentation, or by resigning and directly refering to this campaign the editor can make clear his and the journals uninvolvement in this episode. Although fingering the MANAGING editor....?!
The fault he identifies that caused this error is that when 'peer reviewing' this paper that attacked the accuracy of models, little effort was made to see what the modelers might respond to the comparisons made between some satellite data and some models.
And whether the subject ALREADY had a literature - a scientific context - in which the S&B paper could be judged.
In a way this matches Dr Roy Spencer's speculations about the IPCC/Team pressure, how many phone calls and emails would it take from the leading names in the field telling Wagner he had been made to look like an idiot by accepting a superficially mundane paper from known skeptics that was then used to make outlandish claims for the overthrow of a century of science on the climate ?
-izen-
(post at another place but not yet accepted, grin)
"But his apparent unwillingness and/or inability to stand up to skeptic pranks get him my vote for scientific Obama of the month."
ReplyDeleteIf the sceptic pranks were in a small, closed room, it seems to me that Wagner just threw a hand grenade in and shut the door.
Eli rather likes izen's take on the matter. The analysis of what happened pre grenade is very much like a whole lot of recent science by press release and needs to be corralled. The toxic mixture of Galileo syndrome with churnalism and politics is not a good thing
ReplyDeleteI confess to not getting the whole Galileo comparison. That human activity can change climate is the new kid on the block. The septics are clinging to the Old Guard position that people can't.
ReplyDeleteJeffrey "Cardinal Fang" Davis
ReplyDeleteI confess to not getting the whole Galileo comparison. That human activity can change climate is the new kid on the block. The septics are clinging to the Old Guard position that people can't.
Well, if you compare your average septic with Galileo, you will see only two real differences: Galileo was a genius, and Galileo was right.
Other than that, your average septic is remarkably like Galileo.
Some examples: Galileo was a white male. When he was placed under house arrest, he was an *old* white male. Septics are for the most part old white males. Galileo maintained an average body temperature of about 98.6F, as does your average septic. Galileo had two arms and two legs, as does your average septic. I could go on and on, for page after page, detailing all the things that Galileo and septics have in common, but you get the point.
Anyway, the bottom line is, if you look at the big picture (instead of focusing in niggling details like whether one is right or is a genius), septics and Galileo have an incredible amount in common.
My vote for Nick and Izen.
ReplyDeleteDr Wagner appears to be more than willing to give up his position (that appears could be somewhat titular) in the interest of furthering both science, and perhaps the nascent journal Remote Sensing (that he may still have hopes for).
“Then why wasn’t it retracted?” is a common question on the naysayer blogs. I suspect that Wagner may not have been able to do so by himself (but I would appreciate the insight of others more familiar with the process).
arch
"...septics [sic?] and Galileo have an incredible amount in common."
ReplyDeleteYes
arch
Reminds me of the content of Soap Opera News and similar rags.
ReplyDeleteAre you not taking this paragraph that even gets in to the abstract a bit to easy.
ReplyDelete"While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity."
You could interpret that as they have shown that with some constrains a climate model gives a much lower climate sensitivity? Not that it should be, but that never seams to be how things work...
if the editor disagreed with the selection of the review panel, should he not have resigned earlier? To resign now just makes him look like a tool.
ReplyDelete"Oh, look, he didn't resign soon enough so there's something wrong with him" is incredibly lame, even by birther standards.
ReplyDelete"if the editor disagreed with the selection of the review panel, should he not have resigned earlier?"
ReplyDeleteIt's rarely so black and white. He seems to say that the panel originally looked OK.
Curious bunnies might prefer to ask how this unusual situation where the management chooses the referees came about. Did Spencer submit it through the management?
Nick Stokes --- The managing editor handles all the paper work associated with paper submission and acceptance; not actually the managment, which does finance, printing, distribution and that sort of stuff.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteYes, I should have made that distinction. But still, why is the ME choosing referees?
Nick Stokes --- The only journal with a managing editor I ever submitted to (as best I recall) was one in which I knew the managing editor slightly. In that case he chose the referee himself. For other papers, more remote from his specific area of expertise, He might ask another associaste editor to handle the paper an report back to him.
ReplyDeleteA different journal specified sending all the papers to the editor-in-chief for much the same duties.
I understand why he resigned, as editor-in-chief he should have seen Spencer coming a mile away and made sure that his paper was given full scrutiny, He reminds me of Kramer not realising Communism was such a big thing...Spencer and Climate change??..well I guess I screwed up!
ReplyDeleteA good friend of mine sent me a heads up on this story (sorry Mark, you were a bit late for this quick bunny!), but as a followup he sent me a
ReplyDeletenew UAH fight song (reproduced w/o permission, but I can guarantee you
he won't mind!):
Yea, Alabama! Drown 'em Tide!
Every 'Bama bigot's behind you;
Hit your stride!
Teach that foreigner Obama to behave,
Send the Liberals to a watery grave!
And if the data says they're right
(Dang--oh shit!)
Just ignore it and keep pretending
For 'Bama's pluck and grit
Have writ her name in *Remote Sensing*!
Yea, climate change we've disavowed
No need to worry--there's a cloud!
Fight on, fight on, fight on, men!
Remember the election--we'll win then!
V-I-K-T-R-E-E
Spells victory!
Hit your stride,
You're Dixie's neo-fascist pride, Christian Tide!
David, there may be different kinds of managing editor. For RS, Mr Elvis Wang works out of the DMPI office in Beijing. He apparently does not have a PhD, and I see no claim that he is a scientist.
ReplyDeleteDavid Benson,
ReplyDeleteI found out more about how it's done at DPMI. It's unusual. But the ME selecting the referees does seem to be part of it. Here's what they say:
"The Editorial Offices will organize peer-review and collect at least two review reports per manuscript, ask the authors for adequate revision (peer-review again whenever necessary), before requesting the decision of an external editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief of a journal or the Guest Editor of a special issue)."
That's where the ME, Mr Elvis Wang, came in. So what sort of job does Mr Wang do? I found this acknowledgement:
"Finally, Elvis Wang at the MDPI editorial office is greatly acknowledged for his meticulous editing that improved the readability of this document."
So yes, he's an editor (and a good one).
But how does he select climate science referees? Dunno. But every author has to submit five suggestions.
Nick Stokes -- "But how does he select climate science referees? Dunno. But every author has to submit five suggestions. "
ReplyDeleteYou probably answer your own question. John N-G has his own thoughts on that.
"The journal helpfully gives suggestions for how to find potential referees. But all of the suggestions are ones that can easily be carried out by the managing editor! In fact, that’s how editors found all of their reviewers in the good old days."
"The Wasted Space-Time Continuum"
ReplyDelete-- Horatio Algeranon's versification of a rant by Roy Spencer at his blog
(Horatio took a few liberties, but very few)
Well, well...Kevin Trenberth, is that you?
Hiding behind a screen name as you do?
Your points are lame
Our results were GLOBAL
-- and your straw men are ignoble.
If you even bothered to read our paper,
You would not be passing vapor!
OMG! You're wasting time and space
With your red herrings at my place!
CONGRATULATIONS, YOU'RE THE FIRST TO BE BANNED
FROM THIS SITE, (your hide is tanned)
THE CHARGE IS EITHER CHRONIC IGNORANCE,
OR MALICIOUS OBFUSCATION. Whichever your preference
I find it irksome that the septics have twisted yet another question or phrase to suit their own agenda.
ReplyDeleteThat being the question of whether the paper should be retracted. Other blogs have provided reasons for why it hasn't been and/or should not be retracted (e.g. Greg Laden's linked above). Fair enough [though I know that septics on comment boards will point to it ad nauseum as 'proof' against climate change].
For septics to imply that the lack of retraction is somehow proof of its correctness or of IPCC 'gate keeper' interference is just more spin.
aka IceMouse
John NG said,
ReplyDeleteIt didn’t take my colleague Andrew Dessler long to work out a demonstration that Spencer’s new paper is wrong. Many of his colleagues have counselled against publishing this demonstration, arguing that the time wasted refuting yet another in a series of incorrect papers by the same author would be better spent advancing our knowledge about the climate system and that at some point it’s better just to ignore incorrect papers. I personally agree with you that an incorrect paper should be publicly refuted in the scientific literature, but I can see how it would get annoying to be working on one public refutation after another.
Interestingly to me, at least, is that I sent an email to Micheal Tobis the night before this Spencer news broke regarding climategate and the infamous "keep it out" email from Phil Jones regarding McKitrick's socio-economics paper. Reason being that the authors, and since Mosher/McIntyre/Fuller/hangers-on, think that the AR4 wording ("ceased to be statistically significant") was unjustified because there was no peer-reviewed rebuttal. I've always wondered how the science community felt about the skeptic criticism. I disagreed with it. I'll just paraphrase what I did in the email.
Here is the argument posed in the review comments , starting at the bottom of the page and going on for few more. It appears Jones or whoever is saying that based on all the previous research, McKitrick's results were statistically insignificant. Does there need to be a peer-reviewed calculation for that to be true? And aren't IPCC authors opening up a Pandora's box of shit if we allow any unrebutted paper to make it into the IPCC as something that "may" be true, even if all previous work disagrees? How do we deal with the three or four Sky Dragon papers that disprove the Greenhouse Effect? No one spends time on them because past research shows them to be very flawed. That's the argument being made in the IPCC review comments. The logic almost works backwards. The worse the paper is, the less attention it gets, less likely a scientists is going to spend valuable time investigating (especially knowing how the skeptic crowd will react), and then it seems to have a better chance to make it into synthesized reports, but for political reasons, rather than truthful ones. And should we expect the public to pay for scientists time to rebut papers that are known to be wrong?
There should be something in place to prevent such things in the future, and help people feel that the process is effective, but we are still left with the problem of having scientists making statements that are just not thought to be true by leading experts, if they were to rely on only specific peer reviewed rebuttals to each flawed paper.
Questions that deserve..a hem..due diligence.
Nick Stokes --- Thanks. Not that I worked in an area even vaguely similar, but I wouldn't submit a paper that had a policy like that; too much pride I guess.
ReplyDeleteSomething I wrote about the reaction to the reaction to Wagner: http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/2011/09/dukakis-effect.html
ReplyDeleteAllow Eli to show you how to blog whore. . . .
ReplyDeleteSomething at idiot tracker you might want to read. The key graphs are (links there). . .
------------------------
Needless to say, psuedoskeptics are absolutely furious that somebody would publishing an article at a blog accusing a scientist of making a bunch of mistakes or having a bias. That's the worst thing ever, probably worse than the Holocaust. No, I'm not kidding. No, they don't see the irony. No, I really don't know how that's possible.
The howls of dismay and anger at these fairly cool, collected, and measured contributions to the debate are not accidental. They reflect a double standard that deniers are desperate to maintain -- a set of rules of engagement in which they say absolutely anything about anyone in the most offensive way possible -- chewing the carpet and pounding the table -- but have the expectation that the people they are attacking are not going to defend themselves, are not going to answer back
> Questions that deserve..a hem..due diligence.
ReplyDeleteIndeed.