Bronco_Beerslug
09-03-2011, 01:55 AM
Good for him, he realized what he allowed to be printed was complete crap written by two Right Wing "scientists".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574)
By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News
2 September 2011 Last updated at 18:20
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.
The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase.
It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/55134000/jpg/_55134495_55134494.jpg
The paper claimed mainstream climate models misunderstood the role of clouds
Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with their criticisms and is stepping down.
"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science," he writes in a resignation note published in Remote Sensing.
"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... is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published."
Heated debate
The paper became a cause celebre in "sceptical" circles through its claim that mainstream climate models inflated temperature projections through misunderstanding the role of clouds in the climate system and the rate at which the Earth radiated heat into space.
This meant, it said, that projections of temperature rise made in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports were too high.
The paper, published in July, was swiftly attacked by scientists in the mainstream of climate research.
They also commented on the fact that the paper was not published in a journal that routinely deals with climate change. Remote Sensing's core topic is methods for monitoring aspects of the Earth from space.
Publishing in "off-topic" journals is generally frowned on in scientific circles, partly because editors may lack the specialist knowledge and contacts needed to run a thorough peer review process.
In essence, Dr Wagner, a professor of remote sensing at Vienna University of Technology, is blaming himself for this failing.
But he also blames the researchers themselves for not referencing all the relevant research in their manuscript.
"The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted..., a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.
"In other words, the problem I see with the paper... 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.
"This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal."
'Honourable course'
Scientific papers that turn out to be flawed or fraudulent are usually retracted by the journals that publish them, with editorial resignations a rarity.
But Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said Dr Wagner had done the decent thing.
CONT.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574)
By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News
2 September 2011 Last updated at 18:20
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.
The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase.
It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/55134000/jpg/_55134495_55134494.jpg
The paper claimed mainstream climate models misunderstood the role of clouds
Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with their criticisms and is stepping down.
"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science," he writes in a resignation note published in Remote Sensing.
"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... is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published."
Heated debate
The paper became a cause celebre in "sceptical" circles through its claim that mainstream climate models inflated temperature projections through misunderstanding the role of clouds in the climate system and the rate at which the Earth radiated heat into space.
This meant, it said, that projections of temperature rise made in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports were too high.
The paper, published in July, was swiftly attacked by scientists in the mainstream of climate research.
They also commented on the fact that the paper was not published in a journal that routinely deals with climate change. Remote Sensing's core topic is methods for monitoring aspects of the Earth from space.
Publishing in "off-topic" journals is generally frowned on in scientific circles, partly because editors may lack the specialist knowledge and contacts needed to run a thorough peer review process.
In essence, Dr Wagner, a professor of remote sensing at Vienna University of Technology, is blaming himself for this failing.
But he also blames the researchers themselves for not referencing all the relevant research in their manuscript.
"The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted..., a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.
"In other words, the problem I see with the paper... 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.
"This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal."
'Honourable course'
Scientific papers that turn out to be flawed or fraudulent are usually retracted by the journals that publish them, with editorial resignations a rarity.
But Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said Dr Wagner had done the decent thing.
CONT.