Saw this article today and thought I'd throw it up here just to add a bit more controversy to climate science  8-)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/02/journal-editor-resigns-climate-sceptic-paper

The study mentioned is "On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance" by Spencer and Braswell.

this was the recent one that the anti-ACC people were getting heated over right?

Yeah it was cited a lot recently as being 'another nail in the ACC coffin'.

Quote:

The study mentioned is "On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance" by Spencer and Braswell.

His "diagnosis" was believable though.

Rising surface temperature has been the main basis for proving man made global warming and you have to wonder whether someone has shut him up.

No wonder so many people sit on the fence in regard to man made climate change - who do you trust? When they use the likes of Flannery (who changes his opinion with the weather) and Al Gore etc. to promote global warming - it's hard not to be cynical.

You can't trust the skeptics either.

I agree 100%. Certain aspects/advocates/arguments on both sides are sketchy. The reason I lean toward ACC is because I don't think moving toward sustainable living is a bad thing and the majority of scientists and scientific organizations are in agreement about it. I'm no expert so I rely on experts to give me their opinion and am in no position to criticize....I personally avoid people like Flannery and Gore and think politics is a big factor in the hostile, polarized nature of the debate.

Could a skeptic explain why taking no precautionary action is a good idea? Or why remaining with fossil fuel is desirable? What are the disastrous outcomes that will happen from being prepared?

mantra wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 5:02pm:

Quote: The study mentioned is "On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance" by Spencer and Braswell. His "diagnosis" was believable though. Rising surface temperature has been the main basis for proving man made global warming and you have to wonder whether someone has shut him up. No wonder so many people sit on the fence in regard to man made climate change - who do you trust? When they use the likes of Flannery (who changes his opinion with the weather) and Al Gore etc. to promote global warming - it's hard not to be cynical. You can't trust the skeptics either.

If you have a sore tooth, you see a dentist, not a taxi driver. If you have a burst pipe, you get a plumber, not an astonomer. If you want to know about climate, it's an even more complex field.  

You trust the people who are experts in the field - and don't read The Australian.   ;D

(That's a general comment, Mantra - not directed at you)

muso wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 8:38am:

mantra wrote on Sep 3rd, 2011 at 5:02pm: Quote: The study mentioned is "On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance" by Spencer and Braswell. His "diagnosis" was believable though. Rising surface temperature has been the main basis for proving man made global warming and you have to wonder whether someone has shut him up. No wonder so many people sit on the fence in regard to man made climate change - who do you trust? When they use the likes of Flannery (who changes his opinion with the weather) and Al Gore etc. to promote global warming - it's hard not to be cynical. You can't trust the skeptics either. If you have a sore tooth, you see a dentist, not a taxi driver. If you have a burst pipe, you get a plumber, not an astonomer. If you want to know about climate, it's an even more complex field.   You trust the people who are experts in the field - and don't read The Australian.   ;D (That's a general comment, Mantra - not directed at you)

The only problem muso, is that some of the sceptic scientists ARE experts in their fields......
Roy Spencer IS certainly a qualified and expert climatologist...

He might be qualified, but he's not one of the frontrunners. Apart from that, this latest paper should not have been published because it was so full of errors.

The Editor in Chief of the journal "Remote Sensing" resigned as a result of that gaffe. It's hardly a recommendation given his history with the satellite data.

muso wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 2:08pm:

He might be qualified, but he's not one of the frontrunners. Apart from that, this latest paper should not have been published because it was so full of errors. The Editor in Chief of the journal "Remote Sensing" resigned as a result of that gaffe. It's hardly a recommendation given his history with the satellite data.

According to whom??...Certainly not the peer reviewers..

muso wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 2:08pm:

The Editor in Chief of the journal "Remote Sensing" resigned as a result of that gaffe. It's hardly a recommendation given his history with the satellite data.

It's interesting that the paper wasn't withdrawn.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 12:39pm:

The only problem muso, is that some of the sceptic scientists ARE experts in their fields...... Roy Spencer IS certainly a qualified and expert climatologist...

Except that Spencer happens to be an "expert" who has been wrong about pretty much everything he has applied himslef to throughout his proferssional life and who is quiote open about putting his ideological belief in the free-market above and beyond scientific understanding. You just have to go to his website banner to see just how much of a free-market blowhard he really is:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Fundanomics-ad-banner.png

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 2:48pm:

According to whom??...Certainly not the peer reviewers..

The peer reviewers were not climate scientists, that's why this was published in a journal called Remote Sensing.  Plenty of papers that are dead wrong pass review, the role of review isn't to demonstrate whether a paper is right or not merely that the methodology is sound. And when it came to analysing the sensing data the methodology was perfectly sound. However, it was the fact that the paper ignored bodies of work in the climate press that completely contradict this paper and hence drew false conclusions. there is no reason why reviewers would necessarily pick this up, although had it been published in an ACTUAL geosciences journal then it probably would have been picked up and not made it past review. That's why Spencer publishes in backwater journals like Remote Sensing and not in, say, Geophysical Review or Nature or PNAS or any other reputable journal with a long and rigorous history of publishing papers relating to the geosciences.

Roy Spencer: “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”

The man is a blind ideologue, that's why he rejects climate science, not because of the science but because of the challenge it poses to his ideological beliefs.

barnaby joe wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 12:27pm:

this was the recent one that the anti-ACC people were getting heated over right?

:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

It's been officially (ie. peer-reviewed) debunked in Geophysical Review Letters:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dessler-2011-Debunks-Roy-Spencer-And-Richard-Lindzen.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ngavUkmis&feature=player_embedded

   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 28th, 2011, 1:41pm:

Casterate (sic) anyone who says "I vote labor, my daddy voted labor and my grandaddy voted labor" They will never get better .

WTF is casterate Sprintc?
What's it got to do with the topic/and why is anyone still wasting their time arguing over climate change.??
Nothing better to do?

Don't read  BS  -  watch the f'in NEWS.!!

::) :D

pjb05 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2011 at 5:58pm:

muso wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 2:08pm: The Editor in Chief of the journal "Remote Sensing" resigned as a result of that gaffe. It's hardly a recommendation given his history with the satellite data. It's interesting that the paper wasn't withdrawn.

That's up to "Remote Sensing". If they let publishers choose their own peer reviewers, it doesn't say much for their integrity.  

Emma wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 12:16am:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 28th, 2011, 1:41pm: Casterate (sic) anyone who says "I vote labor, my daddy voted labor and my grandaddy voted labor" They will never get better . WTF is casterate Sprintc? What's it got to do with the topic/and why is anyone still wasting their time arguing over climate change.?? Nothing better to do? Don't read  BS  -  watch the f'in NEWS.!! ::) :D

I guess Arnold Schwarzenegger would have fitted into that category. (not)  ;D

Maybe everyone should talk about climate change in the politics sux because it isn't about the science anymore. Just going by 1 example out of many, the simple fact that you can say one climate scientist is better than the other climate scientist is political. It should be about the science, not the scientist and the prejudices you have against them. It should be about the science, not the bias you hold about the outcome (in terms of scientists reacting to other scientists)

Dr Spencer will have his rebuttal heard as there is many errors and assumption in Desslers paper and it will be politically interesting to see if Spencer gets fast tracked for his rebuttal paper, as Dessler was fast track with his paper against Spencer.

There is good reason that Spencer will win the day in the public arena if the gatekeeping and uglyness of the AGW'ers continues in this ugly debate.

'........ will win the day in the public arena if the gatekeeping and uglyness of the AGW'ers continues in this ugly debate. ' -Quote - progressiveslol

Indeed indeed, proglol- and yet - what you say is 'dense' to me, in the sense that your use of AGW'ers is unclear to me.  Obviously many folk know the meaning - but my familiarity of acronyms is small in this arena - frankly I don't involve myself on-line too much - and so to my literal mind - it could mean , at least, 2 things - opposed definitions.

AGW'ers = anti global warming  'ers. Yes?  If it means anti govt wankers or something else-another ambiguity to my somewhat convoluted gray matter-...please enlighten me!,......  

So,  this could mean "......people working against Global warming' .. ie. environmentalists
  or  '...............people who don't believe in Global warming' ..ie. fools, suckers and selfish a-holes.!!!

A bit like the confusion and ignorance displayed in a short piece on ABC1 - Catalyst tonight . Very interesting.


'Maybe everyone should talk about climate change in the politics sux because it isn't about the science anymore.' ............It should be about the science, not the scientist and the prejudices you have against them.' ...

Yes indeed again - it is about politics -  it seems we are so afraid of the bigger picture, that we need to narrow down the targets to blame , to a smaller scale. As long as they're not Us,.. Pretty pathetic.  See Catalyst tonight (QLD) 8.00pm.  Scientists are receiving death threats ! at a level of virulence and hate, beyond all reason.

Then again - deniers show little reasoning ability, but lots of political nous.  EEEKK... :) :P


Reflecting on what I have written I remember a nightmare I had the other night,,,,,,...  The Prime Minister was Tony Abbott and my feelings of sadness, hopelessness and despair, were much TOO real. I still remember it.!!
Says heaps about me I guess. Take it as you choose. :'(

muso wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 7:48am:

pjb05 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 5:58pm: muso wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 2:08pm: The Editor in Chief of the journal "Remote Sensing" resigned as a result of that gaffe. It's hardly a recommendation given his history with the satellite data. It's interesting that the paper wasn't withdrawn. That's up to "Remote Sensing". If they let publishers choose their own peer reviewers, it doesn't say much for their integrity.

But it was "Remote Sensing" that chose the peer reviewers, so their 'integrity' is fine......  
However, it seems the only person making 'gestures' is the editor in chief, the actual publication group don't see any reason to retract te paper itself......Why would that be??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2011 at 7:20am:

muso wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 7:48am: pjb05 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 5:58pm: muso wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 2:08pm: The Editor in Chief of the journal "Remote Sensing" resigned as a result of that gaffe. It's hardly a recommendation given his history with the satellite data. It's interesting that the paper wasn't withdrawn. That's up to "Remote Sensing". If they let publishers choose their own peer reviewers, it doesn't say much for their integrity.   But it was "Remote Sensing" that chose the peer reviewers, so their 'integrity' is fine......   However, it seems the only person making 'gestures' is the editor in chief, the actual publication group don't see any reason to retract te paper itself......Why would that be??

The question has also arisen why the paper itself has not been retracted (and indeed will not be). However, that would be a really big step. I can only think of two climate science related papers that have been retracted in recent years – one was for plagiarism (among other problems: Said et al, 2008) and the other was because of a numerical calculation error that fatally undermined the reported results. There are of course many, many more papers that are wrong, mistaken and/or ‘bad’ (in the sense defined above) and yet very few retractions occur. I think (rightly) that people feel that the best way to deal with these papers is within the literature itself, and in this case it is happening this week in GRL (Dessler, 2011), and in Remote Sensing in a few months. That’s the way it should be, and neither resignations nor retractions are likely to become more dominant – despite the amount of popcorn being passed around.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/resignations-retractions-and-the-process-of-science/

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 10:34am:

Dr Spencer will have his rebuttal heard as there is many errors and assumption in Desslers paper and it will be politically interesting to see if Spencer gets fast tracked for his rebuttal paper, as Dessler was fast track with his paper against Spencer.

Quote:

Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper Posted on 9 September 2011 by grypo The new "in press" paper in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) from Andrew Dessler (SkS coverage here and here) has been the subject of many skeptical blogs in the last few days.  Why? Has a major issue been exposed?  Have they put on their skeptical hats and used their minds to take a serious look at the Spencer/Lindzen papers that Dessler finds to be flawed?  Not really (but attempted and already criticized).  It's a bit early for any substantive criticism, so for now, assumptions, speculation, and conspiracy fill that void. According to some, the problem is that the paper was written, reviewed, and accepted too fast!  So instead of light bulbs, we get conspiratorial alarm bells. Let's look at the quotes. First, from the usual places, Anthony Watts says: "This paper appears to have been made ready in record time, with a turnaround from submission to acceptance and publication of about six weeks based on the July 26th publication date of the original Spencer and Braswell paper. We should all be so lucky to have expedited peer review service. PeerEx maybe, something like FedEx?" Mr. McIntyre: "It does seem to me that it’s been an awful lot easier for Dessler to publish this comment than it is to publish criticisms of Team articles." And somewhat surprisingly, Roger Pielke Sr. jumps into the fray: "[T]he paper was received 11 August 2011 and  accepted 29 August 2011. This is some type of record in my experiences as editor, and indicates that the paper was fast tracked.  This is certainly unusual" Roy Spencer himself chimes in with his own take on the GRL process: "At this point, it looks quite likely we will be responding to it with our own journal submission… although I doubt we will get the fast-track, red carpet treatment he got." And "I hope that GRL will offer us as rapid a turnaround as Dessler got in the peer review process. Feel free to take bets on that." But is this unusual? Fortunately, GRL publishes the received and accepted dates (as do most publications), so we can use our own skeptical minds to find out.  So, for the papers accepted within a few days of Dessler 2011 -- the average turnaround time from receipt to acceptance:  about 28 days.  How many days for Dessler's?  18 days.  But was Dessler the fastest, even within the last few days?  It turns out Dessler ties Peter Martin Grindrod and Stephen Fawcett at 18 days for their breathlessly awaited paper, "Possible climate-related signals in high-resolution topography of lobate debris aprons in Tempe Terra, Mars" As for the rest of the papers on the 'Papers in Press' page (as of 9/5/11), one paper had a turnaround time of 9 days, another as high as 70.  The issue even had some real outliers like 2 days and 120 days.  So perhaps Dr. Pielke or Anthony Watts can indicate to GRL an acceptable turnaround time, as to protect themselves from insinuations of changing their editorial process to "fast track" select individual papers?   As a comparison, perhaps they can use another paper that came out in 2009.  This paper called into question decades of established science about the range of climate sensitivity, critical of Charney from the 70's, Plass from the 50's, and Arrhenius too, from the late 1800's.  The author of that paper:  Richard Lindzen.  How long did it take for Lindzen to get a paper of such monumental import through GRL review and get a response? 28 days. Six more for acceptance after a revision, and published a month later.   For others, I can't speculate as to the difficulty of getting published in a timely manner without a specific paper, journal, or situation to discuss.  But, one reason that skeptical papers may take longer getting through peer review is that they often challenge work that has been established and validated against measurements and analysis for many decades. So was Dessler 2011 fast-tracked because it is a "Team" publication of established science? Looking at the numbers, this appears like the least likely explanation and nothing more than a political dog-whistle, or a call to those "skeptics" most willing to believe the vast conspiracies revolving around establishment climate science.  Perhaps since Dessler was already well aware of Spencer's and Lindzen's arguments, he was rather more than prepared to write up the rebuttal soon after the release of Spencer's paper in Remote Sensing.  Or, as Texas State climatologist, John Nielsen-Gammon puts it to Roger Pielke Sr.: "It didn’t take my colleague Andrew Dessler long to work out a demonstration that Spencer’s new paper is wrong." In short, there is no evidence to the claim that GRL "fast tracked" this paper due to preferential treatment over other papers, even within the same acceptance window of a few days.  Quite the contrary.  So perhaps the "skeptics" should follow Dessler's example and examine the scientific content of the paper, rather than weaving conspiracy theories

astro_surf wrote on Sep 9^th, 2011 at 1:30pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 9th, 2011 at 7:20am: muso wrote on Sep 8th, 2011 at 7:48am: pjb05 wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 5:58pm: muso wrote on Sep 6th, 2011 at 2:08pm: The Editor in Chief of the journal "Remote Sensing" resigned as a result of that gaffe. It's hardly a recommendation given his history with the satellite data. It's interesting that the paper wasn't withdrawn. That's up to "Remote Sensing". If they let publishers choose their own peer reviewers, it doesn't say much for their integrity.   But it was "Remote Sensing" that chose the peer reviewers, so their 'integrity' is fine......   However, it seems the only person making 'gestures' is the editor in chief, the actual publication group don't see any reason to retract te paper itself......Why would that be?? The question has also arisen why the paper itself has not been retracted (and indeed will not be). However, that would be a really big step. I can only think of two climate science related papers that have been retracted in recent years – one was for plagiarism (among other problems: Said et al, 2008) and the other was because of a numerical calculation error that fatally undermined the reported results. There are of course many, many more papers that are wrong, mistaken and/or ‘bad’ (in the sense defined above) and yet very few retractions occur. I think (rightly) that people feel that the best way to deal with these papers is within the literature itself, and in this case it is happening this week in GRL (Dessler, 2011), and in Remote Sensing in a few months. That’s the way it should be, and neither resignations nor retractions are likely to become more dominant – despite the amount of popcorn being passed around. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/resignations-retractions-and-the-process-of-science/

But isn't that the point??
If SB2011 is as 'fatally flawed' as everyone is claiming, it should warrant retraction..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 9^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:

But isn't that the point?? If SB2011 is as 'fatally flawed' as everyone is claiming, it should warrant retraction..

Maybe if you'd read post the bit you highlighted BEFORE you chimed in with an opinion on a topic your obviously not familiar with...


Quote:

There are of course many, many more papers that are wrong, mistaken and/or ‘bad’ (in the sense defined above) and yet very few retractions occur. I think (rightly) that people feel that the best way to deal with these papers is within the literature itself, and in this case it is happening this week in GRL (Dessler, 2011), and in Remote Sensing in a few months.

http://oi55.tinypic.com/xmpoc8.jpg

Oh well you are all obviously obsessive compulsives who must do what they must do.
Good luck and happy futility.!!

astro_surf wrote on Sep 9^th, 2011 at 5:34pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 9th, 2011 at 2:59pm: But isn't that the point?? If SB2011 is as 'fatally flawed' as everyone is claiming, it should warrant retraction.. Maybe if you'd read post the bit you highlighted BEFORE you chimed in with an opinion on a topic your obviously not familiar with... Quote: There are of course many, many more papers that are wrong, mistaken and/or ‘bad’ (in the sense defined above) and yet very few retractions occur. I think (rightly) that people feel that the best way to deal with these papers is within the literature itself, and in this case it is happening this week in GRL (Dessler, 2011), and in Remote Sensing in a few months.

Actually I did read it...
And my point remains the same.....If the 'best way' to deal with these papers is within the literature, what was the point of the editor's resignation, other than grandstanding????

If the editor in chief of every publication resigned when a paper was challenged, and then refuted in later studies, there'd be NO editors at any journal.....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:23am:

astro_surf wrote on Sep 9th, 2011 at 5:34pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 9th, 2011 at 2:59pm: But isn't that the point?? If SB2011 is as 'fatally flawed' as everyone is claiming, it should warrant retraction.. Maybe if you'd read post the bit you highlighted BEFORE you chimed in with an opinion on a topic your obviously not familiar with... Quote: There are of course many, many more papers that are wrong, mistaken and/or ‘bad’ (in the sense defined above) and yet very few retractions occur. I think (rightly) that people feel that the best way to deal with these papers is within the literature itself, and in this case it is happening this week in GRL (Dessler, 2011), and in Remote Sensing in a few months. Actually I did read it... And my point remains the same.....If the 'best way' to deal with these papers is within the literature, what was the point of the editor's resignation, other than grandstanding???? If the editor in chief of every publication resigned when a paper was challenged, and then refuted in later studies, there'd be NO editors at any journal.....

He took a stand to protect the reputation of his journal and staunch the impression it was the sort of pay-per-publish hack publication that would publish anything. He made it quite clear in his resignation article, had you bothered it, that is... RS was the unwitting dupe in a scandal being manufactured by an infamous political operative and Wagner obviously felt the only way he could redeem its reputation was to fall on his sword.

astro_surf wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:29am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 10th, 2011 at 12:23am: astro_surf wrote on Sep 9th, 2011 at 5:34pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 9th, 2011 at 2:59pm: But isn't that the point?? If SB2011 is as 'fatally flawed' as everyone is claiming, it should warrant retraction.. Maybe if you'd read post the bit you highlighted BEFORE you chimed in with an opinion on a topic your obviously not familiar with... Quote: There are of course many, many more papers that are wrong, mistaken and/or ‘bad’ (in the sense defined above) and yet very few retractions occur. I think (rightly) that people feel that the best way to deal with these papers is within the literature itself, and in this case it is happening this week in GRL (Dessler, 2011), and in Remote Sensing in a few months. Actually I did read it... And my point remains the same.....If the 'best way' to deal with these papers is within the literature, what was the point of the editor's resignation, other than grandstanding???? If the editor in chief of every publication resigned when a paper was challenged, and then refuted in later studies, there'd be NO editors at any journal..... He took a stand to protect the reputation of his journal and staunch the impression it was the sort of pay-per-publish hack publication that would publish anything. He made it quite clear in his resignation article, had you bothered it, that is... RS was the unwitting dupe in a scandal being manufactured by an infamous political operative and Wagner obviously felt the only way he could redeem its reputation was to fall on his sword.

Which operative???
Astro, I read almost all of the articles you link.....At very least I scan through the more biased ones, like realclimate.org....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 12:32am:

Which operative???

Spencer. He has form going back decades of using research papers not as methods of illumination but rather as political grenades to throw into the media. That's why he chose a small journal, new on the the scene and not focused on geophysical sciences, meaning the editorial staff weren't familiar with his form and quite naive about what these denier's are really capable of. Hence why, when it became apparent to the editor that he had been duped by political operatives moire interested in getting their political  message into the mainstream media than they are good science, he did the honourable thing and fell on his sword in order to protect the reputation of his fledgling journal.


Quote:

Roy Spencer Roy Spencer is somewhat of a serial mistake scientist.  Over the past 20 years, he has continually tried to show that global warming is either not happening or is not of concern.  The problem is, he has been shown to be wrong time and time again.  He has left it up to others to fix his mistakes.  He has made multiple errors with satellite measurements – in fact, he originally said the earth was getting colder.  After scientists discovered he had made errors, he corrected his work and his new results show the earth is warming.  He also made mistakes with his climate modeling that forced other scientists to write corrections.  In the end, Roy has been forced time and time again to admit his errors. Spencer doesn’t really view himself as a scientist.  Recently, he stated that he views himself a little like a “legislator, paid by the taxpayer to minimize government.”  This is curious as his job is to do science, to provide the public with accurate information and let others handle policy. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_quote.htm

Quote:

Astro, I read almost all of the articles you link.....At very least I scan through the more biased ones, like realclimate.org....

Biased. Yes. Biased towards truth and accuracy. Biased towards defending the good name of the field that the writers all work in. Biased towards science over politics or even policy. That kind of biased.

If the paper was retracted then the deniers would be screaming blue bloody murder about being "censored" by "the Team". Much better to let the paper stand for the abomination it is and let it be torn to shreds in the literature. The deniers are looking for a martyr, they'd love to see this paper retracted.

astro_surf wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 11:27am:

If the paper was retracted then the deniers would be screaming blue bloody murder about being "censored" by "the Team". Much better to let the paper stand for the abomination it is and let it be torn to shreds in the literature. The deniers are looking for a martyr, they'd love to see this paper retracted.

And as it stands now, the impression is that any editor who accepts papers from the 'wrong' side must either resign in disgrace ( or be 'asked' to resign)...

So, same net effect...

But, whatever.....I'm content to wait...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 1:31pm:

astro_surf wrote on Sep 10th, 2011 at 11:27am: If the paper was retracted then the deniers would be screaming blue bloody murder about being "censored" by "the Team". Much better to let the paper stand for the abomination it is and let it be torn to shreds in the literature. The deniers are looking for a martyr, they'd love to see this paper retracted. And as it stands now, the impression is that any editor who accepts papers from the 'wrong' side must either resign in disgrace ( or be 'asked' to resign)... So, same net effect... But, whatever.....I'm content to wait...

No it doesn't. And you can't you you "every man" schtick here because the everyman isn't the target audience. The target audience is a professional class that understand full well that operatives like Spencer are not a 'side'. The only message here is that the editor knows he is a dupe and that his journal had been played for fools.

astro_surf wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 6:02pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 10th, 2011 at 1:31pm: astro_surf wrote on Sep 10th, 2011 at 11:27am: If the paper was retracted then the deniers would be screaming blue bloody murder about being "censored" by "the Team". Much better to let the paper stand for the abomination it is and let it be torn to shreds in the literature. The deniers are looking for a martyr, they'd love to see this paper retracted. And as it stands now, the impression is that any editor who accepts papers from the 'wrong' side must either resign in disgrace ( or be 'asked' to resign)... So, same net effect... But, whatever.....I'm content to wait... No it doesn't. And you can't you you "every man" schtick here because the everyman isn't the target audience. The target audience is a professional class that understand full well that operatives like Spencer are not a 'side'. The only message here is that the editor knows he is a dupe and that his journal had been played for fools.

Sure we can play the "every man schtick"......if every day people weren't the target audience, why did was it in sooooooo many news sites, climate change sites and blogs????

And again, as for the editor in chief resigning........He mustn't have had much of a commitment to the journal, if he spits the dummy over ONE (relatively minor) mistake, that doesn't actually trace back to him.....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 10:43pm:

Sure we can play the "every man schtick"......if every day people weren't the target audience, why did was it in sooooooo many news sites, climate change sites and blogs????

The resignation was published in a scholarly journal whose audience is entirely made up of other scholars. The only reason the media is even aware of the issue is because that's exactly the political response Spencer was trying to achieve by publishing such a rubbish piece of work. That was the reason he published his exaggerated press release from UAH and planted the story in Forbes. It's never been about the science. This is exactly the sort of game deniers want to play, convince "everymen" like yourself that there is controversy where there really is none and sow the seeds of doubt in the community


Quote:

And again, as for the editor in chief resigning........He mustn't have had much of a commitment to the journal, if he spits the dummy over ONE (relatively minor) mistake, that doesn't actually trace back to him.....

He's protecting the reputation of his fledgling journal, not "spitting the dummy". And, no, it wasn't "minor", it was a tactical attack from the denier lobby who only ever had political motives at heart



Quote:

Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says: July 5, 2011 at 5:47 AM Nicholas, I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism. I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government. If I and others are ultimately successful, it may well be that my job is no longer needed. Well then, that is progress. There are other things I can do.

jeez astro -- you surely do like that 'casterate' bit eh???

Emma wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 11:15pm:

jeez astro -- you surely do like that 'casterate' bit eh???

And you sure like Bob Marley, eh?

it's the words - the words

apt for many many issues.
'course  I think Bob said lots.!

unlike those you lot are arguing about.  

YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Emma wrote on Sep 10^th, 2011 at 11:42pm:

unlike those you lot are arguing about.   YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're the one reading the thread, genius.

/shrugz

So??
I'm bored - what can I say
well
actually just seen Chrissy Amphlett and the Divinyls  'live' on ABC RAGE.
IMMACULATE.

There's a fine line between Pleasure and Pain.

So??

I just find it hard to understand why you all are wasting your time over minutiae,  -- lordy - :-?

he said this - but he said this - and he resigned - and he's a known media junkie and he 's not politically appropriate, and he has no genuine scientific corroboration,  .. and that editor is a ..   and th..... ad infinitum ad nauseam......  

do you seek to achieve anything by this exchange?   (edited)

see - I don't think there is any doubt that we face climactic change, and procrastinating about it , or even trying to persuade those who refuse to see, is a waste of effort, that could be put to better use.

By arguing about what some interest group , as personified by your proponents, say, you are merely,  note - merely - ('cos I give you both the benefit of the doubt re your intentions), adding to the discord.

We need consensus! :).

I can't speak for anyone else but I just like laughing at deniers.

astro_surf wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 12:04pm:

I can't speak for anyone else but I just like laughing at deniers.

lol
;D ;D ;D

It is said that it is good to laugh at ones self.

You being a global cooling denier will do well to laugh at yourself, not just at the warming deniers.

astro_surf wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 12:04pm:

I can't speak for anyone else but I just like laughing at deniers.

And, right on cue, a perfect case in point! ;D



progressiveslol wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 6:02pm:

You being a global cooling denier will do well to laugh at yourself, not just at the warming deniers.

/points and laughs

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You TARD! ;D

HUH??? Wot you say proglol??

- ' lol
 

It is said that it is good to laugh at ones self.' - proglol


Try it sometime. :) :)

astro_surf wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 6:10pm:

astro_surf wrote on Sep 11th, 2011 at 12:04pm: I can't speak for anyone else but I just like laughing at deniers. And, right on cue, a perfect case in point! ;D progressiveslol wrote on Sep 11th, 2011 at 6:02pm: You being a global cooling denier will do well to laugh at yourself, not just at the warming deniers. /points and laughs BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You TARD! ;D

lol glad you liked it. Thought I would try and give you a start on laughing.

think I'll go and play backgammon. ;D

Emma wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 9:05pm:

think I'll go and play backgammon. ;D

With Gizmo? I was wondering where he'd gotten to...

Ahhhh   Ms A hicks appears -- out of context - of course, -

ooh ooh -unless a hicks idea is that immigrants are responsible for global climate change as well.!@! 8-)

astro_surf wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 12:04pm:

I can't speak for anyone else but I just like laughing at deniers.

Do you deny that deniers are pretty widespread, thanks to the media?  The Australian is a case in point. Fox in the US is another.

Most people jump on the denialist bandwagon with little understanding of the science, and there are people out there who for one reason or another choose to perpetuate this widespread state of confusion, so it's hardly surprising that there are denialists, and that they hold up sources such as the Australian to show just how respectable their position is. It's a totally topsy-turvy situation.

Laughing at them is hardly the most constructive thing to do.  

Quote:

Laughing at them is hardly the most constructive thing to do.

yeah but the kind of people astro is laughing at are the progressivelol types who are exposed to the science regularly and also explained it practically day in day out on this forum and either do not understand it or pretend not to understand it

in the case of people like prog there is nothing 'constructive' that can be done because there is no getting through to them, so why not just laugh?

Mod: Comment removed. Please refrain from personal attacks.

.

LOL, I'd love to have seen this post before you deleted it, it must have been pretty bad if it was below even your standards! ;D

.  ;)