Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Let's take the mitts off here. Spencer is a posterboy for the Heartland Institute, and so basically an oil company shill.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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 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.
He is also an intelligent designer.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
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, 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. 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.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
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 debacle for a similar ID stunt.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If the Spencer paper has problems isn't that just an opportunity for someone else to publish? Why would the editor resign other than for politics?
The journal promises to release only peer reviewed papers. The editor's job is to ensure that happens. Normally the reason bad papers are published is because the peer review failed to work properly, but in this case it's because the proper peer review failed to take place. If he didn't clearly own up to his mistake it would be impossible to trust this editor to ensure peer review in future. His continuing to edit this journal would not only damage the journal (which could not claim to have an appropriate editor) but could also damage his future chance of editing journals since there would be no clear way to show he learned from his mistake.
Resigning is not just good for the journal, it's good for the guy himself who can now apply for future editing positions and be clear that he got there on merit and with the people knowing fully what he had done before.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
"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.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
>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