Journal editor resigns

[Persia]

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574

[Wickian]

Hmm

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.

I've never read the paper so I can't say anything for sure, but wasn't the entire paper about dissecting the scientific arguments of the AGW concept and in doing so trying to prove them wrong/flawed? How so then could the scientific arguments have been ignored?

Even then, wouldn't a counter-paper showing how this paper is wrong/flawed be the correct response to dismiss it's claims instead of just saying "you're wrong" and (probably)pressing an editor into resigning for dramatic effect?

[Karlis]

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-14768574

I'm posting a few excerpted paragraphs from the OP article, to outline Roy Spencer's and William Braswell's stand on their research. In doing this, I am trying to be "neutral" (if that's possible here).

I guess supporters of both viewpoints will have their personal opinions.

Karlis

-=-=-=-

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.

...

Roy Spencer, however, told BBC News: "I stand behind the science contained in the paper itself, as well as my comments published

on my blog at drroyspencer.com

.

"Our university press release necessarily put our scientific results in lay language, and what we believe they mean in the larger context of global warming research. This is commonly done in press statements made by the IPCC and its scientists, too, when reporting on research which advocates the view that climate change is almost entirely caused by humans.

"The very fact that the public has the perception that climate change is man-made, when in fact there is as yet no way to know with any level of scientific certainty how much is man-made versus natural, is evidence of that."

[Von Bismarck]

Dont really care if the paper is bs or not. At least someone is looking at cloud cover vs temperature. More of this please.

Another victory for IPCC.

Edited September 4, 2011 by BFB

[Little Fish]

seems this "editor resigning" is an increasing trend where questioning AGW is concerned. the correct established scientific response is to submit a scientific reasoned letter to the journal for peer review and allow the authors a published response. this "editor resigning" + assertion is not science, it's dogma.

[Von Bismarck]

seems this "editor resigning" is an increasing trend where questioning AGW is concerned. the correct established scientific response is to submit a scientific reasoned letter to the journal for peer review and allow the authors a published response. this "editor resigning" + assertion is not science, it's dogma.

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

WOW a very good reason to resign.

If the paper was really so unworthy of publishing, shouldn't it be withdrawn? Ups they can't, because then the mainstream media will pick it up and find out how political climate science has become.

Al Gore - 1

Science - 0

[Guest]

WOW a very good reason to resign.

If the paper was really so unworthy of publishing, shouldn't it be withdrawn? Ups they can't, because then the mainstream media will pick it up and find out how political climate science has become.

Al Gore - 1

Science - 0

I once thought you were a reasonable man with a relatively open mind - you have certainly shown your true colours recently.

Br Cornelius

[Von Bismarck]

I once thought you were a reasonable man with a relatively open mind - you have certainly shown your true colours recently.

Br Cornelius

Why?

Because i say we have too much politics in climate science?

You dont agree?

hmmmm interesting.

Edited September 5, 2011 by BFB

[Doug1029]

I'm posting a few excerpted paragraphs from the OP article, to outline Roy Spencer's and William Braswell's stand on their research. In doing this, I am trying to be "neutral" (if that's possible here).

I guess supporters of both viewpoints will have their personal opinions.

Karlis

-=-=-=-

The only way you'll be able to be objective about this is to post the original paper in its entirety along with an analysis of its scientific shortcomings. Otherwise, there will be no rational discussion of the topic on THIS thread.

Doug