Friday
Sep162011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Wagner speaks to IoP
Sep 16, 2011 Climate: Models Journals Physics World has managed to extract some brief comments from Wolfgang Wagner, the editor of Remote Sensing who resigned over the Spencer and Braswell paper:
I saw several basic problems [in the Spencer–Braswell paper], including that correlation does not imply causality, the fact that 10 years' of satellite data are not enough to come to such strong conclusions about the subtle and long-term changes in climate, and that, indeed, too little quantitative evidence was presented to support these strong claims,"
He also denies having any pressure put on him. Which is odd when one recalls his apology to Kevin Trenberth.
(H/T Jonathan Drake)
Reader Comments (28)
This is the real issue. If we can simply suppress all discerning views a little while longer - the public may be persuaded that the debate is actually over after all.
Dessler is a disgrace. Especially after Spencer was so magnanimous after finding Dessler's paper was full of errors as it was fast tracked through
peerpal review."Every month, dozens if not hundreds of papers are published that are in agreement with the mainstream theory of climate science," he says. "But every year, one or two sceptical papers get published, and these are then trumpeted by sympathetic media outlets as if they had discovered the wheel. It therefore appears to the general public that there's a debate."
I'm not taking this drivel from anybody who is sufficiently incompetent/mendacious to believe that a regression with an R2 value of 0.02 is fit to draw conclusions from. The fact that papers containing such risible bilge survive climate science 'peer review' only proves that those conducting the review are also either statistically incompetent or worse. This is not science.
And to paraphrase Einstein, only one of the sceptical papers has to be correct, right?
such strong conclusions
This is a blatant lie. There are no "strong conclusions" in Spencer and Braswell's paper. I guess Dear Kev has provided a canned response to wagner.
Trenberth has a real problem. He is not trained in Physics or Engineering so when, presumably he, used the isolated S-B equation for what he believed to 'back radiation' he didn't realise that you have to consider both emitter and source for equilibrium.
This is because at equilibrium both sources and receivers send the same energy with the same absorptivity and emissivity [Kirchhoff's radiation law], which may differ from one source to another but there is no net heat transfer.
This is a scientific misunderstanding of monumental size and to admit will be scientific suicide.
So he can't admit it.. The man's a charlatan.
That's a good point. The fact Wagner felt he needed to make an apology to a human being, as if the publication was a personal affront to that human being, and not just a paper with some flaws that Wagner personally objected to, shows that, in effect, Trenberth owns this field of study, at least in Wagners mind.
That indicates to me that to some extent Wagner felt pressure from the weight of his personal inter-relations with Trenberth - whatever the nitty gritty of the details ;)
In light of all the developments since Wagner fell (or was pushed onto) his sword, it seems to have taken him an awfully long time to come up with this revisionized "reason" for resigning. It is interesting, though, to note that in the Physics World piece, Kerry Emmanuel is quoted as saying:
which is probably closer to the truth than anything Kev and/or Wolf have uttered since Sept. 1. By contrast, the Dessler quote seems somewhat mean-spirited, as well, IMHO.
And wasn't Dessler's paper supposed to be published in GRL within a week of The Three Doomateers' Sept. 2 "Op Ed"? Is it customary for a journal to stop the presses in order to accommodate a rewrite of an in press article?!
Incidentally, Spencer now has a Sep. 14 open letter to Dessler encouraging him to publish.
As an ex-member of the IOP I find it difficult to understand why that statement by Dessler was not challenged not only because it was inaccurate but also because the physics world should know more than most how so-called mainstream science has been overturned many times by the efforts of just a few radicals.
hro001
So one of the papers, by Dessler himself, that is in agreement with the mainstream theory of climate science has been put on hold. How utterly bizarre!
So much for "published and be damned". Dessler has shown himself to be coward. Confronted by his own mistakes he hasn't got the bottle to correct his accepted paper or publish the original draft.
Has Trenberth had words with the cowardly Dessler?
Would Wagner of Dessler pass muster at the IOP?
The answer would be no!
Both Wagner and Dessler are cowards.
Mac,
The twists and turns get more bizarre by the week! My guess is that Kev was not at all happy with Dessler's public acknowledgement that he had misrepresented Spencer - and said that he would "correct" this in his revisions.
Who knows, perhaps this particular misrepresentation was the "contribution" for which Dessler had originally thanked Kev?! So now Ol' King Kev needs the fog of time in the hope that ppl will forget Dessler's commitment - so that the original will stand.
Kinda like some of Briffa's "responses" to certain reviewer comments on the SOD of AR4 ;-)
Let's look at what Andrew Dessler's statement looks like in the light of scientific progress. At various times he could have written:"Every month, dozens if not hundreds of papers are published that are in agreement with the mainstream theory of geology/geocentrism/cosmology/miasma/phlogiston/caloric/luminiferous ether. But every year, one or two plate tectonics/heliocentrism/distant galaxy/germ theory/ 'oxygen'/kinetic/relativistic papers get published, and these are then trumpeted by sympathetic media outlets as if they had discovered the wheel. It therefore appears to the general public that there's a debate."
I don't think 'climate science' can claim to be a science with players like Dessler and Trenberth who, like Al Gore, want to reverse the burden of proof, i.e. climate alarmism is the 'new normal' unless you can prove otherwise, and no debate will be permitted anyway so don't even try. Publications and news media who break ranks must be bullied, shut down and hung out to dry.
Notice also this obnoxiously arrogant attitude by Dessler: if papers challenging the mainstream appear in the literature then it only APPEARS that there's a debate. In other words, Dessler et al are so contemptuous of any other opinions than their own that they even consider new evidence and new analyses that challenge their position to be unworthy of their consideration, and that there is no debate to be had at all.
Whilst they disdain debate, we witness the unseemly spectacle of Dessler and Trenberth putting the boot into Spencer and Braswell before they have even properly read the paper. Of course, it's beneath them to actually read the paper properly because it's by definition unworthy of their consideration.
No comments are allowed on this article at Physics World. Is this a mistake or purposely done for some reason?
Every month, dozens if not hundreds of papers are published that are in vague agreement with the consensus hypothesis of climate science. They are rarely unequivocal and often a sea of weasel words amidst calls for more funding.
Climate science is in a terrible state if a paper demonstrating ambiguity in the effects of clouds can provoke such a response.
hro001 - thank you for pointing out Dr Spencer's open letter to Dressler.
Of course, the main point of his letter is to draw attention to the fact that (contrary to what many would have you believe) there is as yet no refuting paper published at all. Nothing to argue against, because it is still being revised.
"Every month, dozens if not hundreds of papers are published that are in agreement with the mainstream theory of climate science," he says. "But every year, one or two sceptical papers get published, and these are then trumpeted by sympathetic media outlets as if they had discovered the wheel. It therefore appears to the general public that there's a debate."
Einstein said when 30 Nazi scientists wrote a book against Relativity: "If they had been right, it would have taken only one scientist."
hro001's link to Spencer letter to Dessler is funny.
I can just imagine Spencer writing it with Josh's cartoon pinned up on the wall.
Yet Dessler has the cheek to come out with this self righteous rubbish. I was developing some respect for Dessler, but that is over. He was proved wrong, can't admit it, and is relying on the consensus to justify his position.
Wagner says ten years is too short a period to determine climate trends.
Well he ought to tell that to the US national climate data centre who have a press release out about the second lowest ice sheet extent observed in the arctic this year.
"Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its lowest extent for the year. The minimum ice extent was the second lowest in the satellite record, after 2007, and continues the decadal trend of rapidly decreasing summer sea ice."
Funny how a decadal trend is only worth mentioning when it supports one's point of view.
This is a killer from Wagner "I saw several basic problems [in the Spencer–Braswell paper], including that correlation does not imply causality"
So I guess that the rise in Global temperature which is correlated with increased CO2, does not imply causality?
Come on Nick (Stokes) explain this one to me!
Sorry we still not seen anything from Wagner to say why the unemployment offices should not be full of ex-journal editors if the reason have given for resigning were really enough. And the grand standing to Trenberth for what seems like no good reason remains totally unexplained.
"correlation does not imply causality"
Yes it does.
An editor has a poor command of language?
Q: So Wolfgang, did anyone pressure you or exert any influence on you?
A: Ummmm. I'll have to call you back on that.
Return phone call --
A: I'm calling back to give you an answer to your question about influence being exerted.
Q: Yes?
A: My answer is, quote, I have not been pressured in any way whatsoever. No one has exerted any influence of any kind upon me. Especially not Kevin Trenberth. end quote. Did you get all that? Or do you want me to read it again?
Wagner says: "I saw several basic problems [in the Spencer–Braswell paper], including that correlation does not imply causality...,"
Wagner is being sloppy. Of course, correlation is not proof of causation, however, correlation implies (or infers) that there may be (no higher than raising a possibility of) a casative link.
As regards the 10 year point, obviously the shorter the period reviewed, the greater the risk that all you are looking at is chance or randomness or noise or inbuilt variability. The same can equally be said of 30 years. In the overall scheme of Earth's climate, a 30 year period is but a snapshot and we should be looking at millenia to ascertain whether there is any statistical significance in what is being observed. However that said, a 10 year period can show whether a divergence issue is possibly emerging which issue needs investigating.
The entire sage is very embarassing for science. Many of course consider that climate science lost its credibility long ago.
This is the timeline, I think:
2 Sept: Wagner publishes his resignation over SB11 publication in Remote Sensing. Guardian reports that Dessler rebuttal is due to be published in GRL the following week. Trenberth, Abraham & Gleick write that Wagner and Remote Sensing publisher have apologised to Trenberth.
[Aside: has anyone seen the text of this apology?]
6 Sept: Dessler paper available online.
7 Sept: Spencer reports that Dessler has agreed that some changes should be made. It is not clear when Dessler (revised) will appear.
8 Sept: Trenberth, Fasullo & Abraham submit rebuttal to SB11 to Remote Sensing, which is immediately accepted as Commentary. (This appears not to be the same as a Comment, to which the original authors would normally have a right of reply.)
With all due regard to Wagner's statement that no pressure was applied to him or to the journal, I think something's rotten in Switzerland.
@ richard verney Sep 16, 2011 at 8:22 PM
Not to mention the parsley, rosemary and thyme ;-) Or, if you prefer, the paleo, raw-data and tricks***... Sorry, it's Friday (well, at least in my neck of the virtual woods) ... and I couldn't resist!
Compared to most here, I am quite late to the party, having inadvertently stumbled through the doorway a mere ten days BC [Before Climategate]. So, I'm still trying to discover how it ever succeeded in acquiring credibility as a science.
However, considering the timeline noted by HaroldW above, it seems to me that somewhere along the line there was a "tipping point" - and that this loss of credibility (however it it may have been acquired) is happening at a rate that is, well, much faster than we thought.
*** with sincere and abject apologies to Simon and Garfunkle ...
Are you going to climate change fair
Paleo sage, raw-data and tricks
Remember me to Mann who lives there
He once was a student of mine
Tell him to make me a great hockey-stick
Paleo sage, raw-data and tricks
And if need be we'll hide the decline
Kev has said the power is mine
Tell him to make me a great looking graph
Paleo sage, raw-data and tricks
And if need be peer review we'll define
Kev has said the power is mine
Are you going to climate change fair
Paleo sage, raw-data and tricks
Poor Wolf is trapped by headlines that glare
Kev has said the power is mine
It does not matter who says what, and the number of papers that are published. The climate models require positive cloud feedbacks to predict temperature rises of 5 degrees or more. The Dessler paper is statistically weak, as is the Spencer and Bracewell paper which shows the contrary. The major result is that the hypothesis that rising CO2 levels will cause warming beyond 1 or 2 degrees has no robust empirical evidence to support it.
hro001 -
I couldn't resist a rejoinder in the same vein:
And the people bowed and prayed
To the greenhouse god they made.
And Hansen said our CO2
Would turn out to be our Waterloo.
And the Gore said, "The words of the prophets are written in the GRL
We're bound for hell."
And called all dissent, bull****.
Very well sung, HaroldW ;-)