Science

Questions Linger After Journal Editor Resigns Over Controversial Climate Change Research

Last week, the editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing — an open access journal — resigned over research that cast doubt on man-made global warming. Wolfgang Wagner said there were issues with his publication’s peer review process and it “therefore should not have been published.”

Remote Sensing Editor Steps Down After Controversial Climate Study Found Flawed

Wolfgang Wagner

Retraction Watch (via Roger Pielke, Jr.), a blog that tracks retractions from scientific journals, makes the observation that it’s “curious”  for Wolfgang Wagner to go as far as resigning:

We are not in a position to critique the claims. But we are curious: If Wagner feels he published the article in error, why not simply retract it? Was it really necessary to fall on his sword to make the point that he now feels he made a mistake in publishing the paper? It’s a noble gesture, and not unprecedented for editors of climate journals, but is it best for science?

The research, published in July by University of Alabama, Huntsville, scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell essentially stated that it found climate change models used by the United Nations may be overestimating the how much global warming will occur in the future. In his resignation letter (via BBC) published in Remote Sensing online, Wagner said after Internet discussion raised contention over the accuracy of the study and realized there were problems with the review process:

From a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors. This selection by itself does not mean that the review process for this paper was wrong.

. . .

The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), 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 by Spencer and Braswell 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.

Wagner referred to Forbes, Fox News and the University of Alabama, Huntsville, press release as just a few of the publications exaggerating the conclusions of the study:

Unfortunately, their campaign apparently was very successful as witnessed by the over 56,000 downloads of the full paper within only one month after its publication. But trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible.

Forbes contributor William Pentland responded to the Forbes’ mention as one of the exaggerators in the resignation letter saying:

I imagine I am not alone in finding Wagner’s move worrisome. Bad papers are published all of the time. Why treat this one differently? Perhaps the political reaction to the paper’s findings had something to do with it. Wagner himself certainly does implies that the politics played at least a partial role in his decision to step down.

Roger Piekle, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder, wrote on his blog that it was “simply bizarre” for Wagner to in his resignation letter make an apology to Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. Trenberth strongly contested the research and recently wrote an editorial in The Daily Climate calling Wagner’s resignation an “unusual and admirable step.”

Piekle’s father, Piekle, Sr., on his blog (Climate Science: Roger Piekle, Sr.) delved further into Trenberth’s editorial. Piekle, Sr., is a meteorologist who has served as editor-in-chief of the U.S. National Science Report to the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, co-chief editor of the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences and as editor of the Scientific Online Letters on the Atomsphere. Piekle, Sr., notes that Trenberth, like several other publications over the last few months, are discounting Remote Sensing as an appropriate place to publish a climate science paper (Remote Sensing publishes peer reviewed articles about science and application of remote sensing technology):

The claim that a journal on remote sensing, which publishes paper on the climate system “but…does not deal much with atmospheric and climate science”, is not climate science is obviously incorrect.  This trivialization of the journal in this manner illustrates the inappropriately narrow view of the climate system by the authors.

BBC also picked up on the fact that scientists seemed to be questioning the validity of Remote Sensing publishing a study on climate science:

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.

Piekle, Sr., goes defend the study authors against Trenberth’s editorial attack that they have a “history of making serious technical errors”:

The errors in their analysis were all minor and were identified as soon as found. Such corrections are a normal part of the scientific process…

He writes that he has had direct experience with the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and can attest for its rigor to assess and correct analysis.

Spencer wrote on his blog that he still stands by the integrity of the science in his study.

Comments (115)

1 2 3
  • dnewton
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:59pm

    I think we need to start throwing all of our empty plastic bottles into the ocean with the lids on them. That would start to cover major areas of the ocean and ****** evaporation of water which is a much more effective Global Warming Gas. It would save a lot of space in our land fills and avoid the expense of recycling. Too bad we are broke. I could get some government money to test this.

    Report Post »  
    • db321
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 1:20am

      Who Cares – Global Warming is yesterday old news – I just got called a “Son of a Bitch” by a Union Goon and right now I’m mad. In 2012 – I’m going to be Glad again and Obama is going to be Sad.

      Report Post » db321  
    • buckster6.0
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 2:43am

      Man,his kid are gonna be real proud,

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 6:12am

      The original data for this nonsense of Global Warming has been debunked for years. Except of course in the minds (tiny ones at that) of wannabe academicians (aka liberals and progressives) who are striving to make themselves the elite and steal the hard work, honesty, and integrity.

      Than again? Maybe I was hasty in that. Perhaps for Liberals and Progressives the Climate “is” in fact heating up. For them, it’s a sign of their ultimate fate in a really warm spot. The climate in my world is just perfect.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • HKS
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 6:17am

      Follow the money and you will find the rats.

      Report Post » HKS  
    • sourdoughboy
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 11:16am

      I would not count out government funding so fast. Just wright up a vaguely worded proposal describing it as a study that illustrates man can effect the climate and the horrors of having a deep blue ocean that retains more heat than a white one.

      Report Post »  
    • Dont-hate-on-me-2
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 11:17am

      This may or may not be on topic, im sick and my eyes hurt and its all due to global warming.

      Well to be honest I seem to get into debats quite often about global warming, and so many people refuse to relize that the movment in of it self is a political one. Do we pollute? Yes. But what the top dogs are trying to do is filter imformation to us. The use it as a revenue source and anyone who does not agree with the liberals commys or whatever are punished. Every animal on this planet pollute. the planet itself pollutes, the sun becomes more active (or less). Our planet has its own natural enviroment which is effected by a hell of alot more than people, but to many are blind to the truths.
      Its just easier to kill economys and countrys than tell the truth,
      this is tl;dr

      Report Post » Dont-hate-on-me-2  
    • 4truth2all
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 7:52pm

      Yo DB321:
      If it don’t apply… don’t apply it. He got nothing on me!
      Yo DNEWTON:
      Based on what this adminisration has funded… I think ya got a shot.

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 10:20pm

      EddardinWinter, thanks for your comment. I enjoy visiting and posting here. I get a lot of insults but don’t take them personally. It’s relatively rare I get anything besides that, like an actual argument about facts or principles. Wouldn’t it be boring to read post after post saying President Obama is a “communist” and basically nothing else? I know that very few if any people of any stripe will examine their own opinions when confronted with a different one. But what I do think we all need more of is to examine the issues and not just parrot what our personal leaders are saying. For example, I’m just about sick of the President, but I’m sure for different reasons than most here!

      Billy, did you hack my name and avatar? I’d never do that to you. I thought we were friends?

      Report Post » jzs  
    • J Z S
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 11:41pm

      @jzs

      Such a twit. You should get over yourself. In case your unaware we both wanted the same name. I had to add some spaces. Do you feel hacked when you get an email address and you have to go through several or change the original because your desired name is taken?

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 11:50pm

      Hey JZS,

      No, I did not hack you. I am not that computer savvy. I am an old fart like you, and do not possess those skills.

      Besides, I am a man of honor, and would not stoop that low.

      I did however know that that was not you over on the IHOP thread, and was surprised that so many thought it was you.

      You are unique unto yourself, and no one could ever take your place.

      I do hope that the Blaze shuts them down. We don’t need that.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • weeblewacker1
      Posted on September 7, 2011 at 11:57am

      looks like the dude resigned because of pure embarrassment! he knows he should have researched or fact checked that article before publishing it.derp! what do ya mean climate change is real? and that these guys who wrote the articale are not real climate scientists? welll,duhhh,anybody with any common sense can tell you that it is very real..

      Report Post »  
  • cosmic dogma
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:52pm

    Silly humans! Who can not predict earthquakes, or volcanic eruptions, or the ensuing tsunamis that kill thousands of innocents! How dare you to say you understand the cycles of the earth? Are you aware of the glaciers and oceans that once covered the earth? HUMAN BEINGS DO NOT, CAN NOT, AND WILL NEVER CONTROL THE CLIMATE. Be humble, and thank God for his beautiful creation.

    Report Post »  
    • kindling
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 12:16am

      And that is the problem….these people do not believe in God. They can’t believe in God and think man is powerful enough to change climate. They think they are gods…..they are scientists!

      Report Post » kindling  
    • Educator101
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 12:46am

      Have you ever heard of HAARP?

      Report Post »  
    • Bill Rowland
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 5:19am

      Al Gore has a lot of his dads money tied up in futures – he can’t get richer unless he and the scientists predict the weather 50 years into the future. Listen to him cry and see how desperate he is getting because he’s not making any money. Now he is not only calling people who don’t agree with him terrorists but racists (don’t for get when a liberal is backed into a corner he hollers racist).

      Psalm 109:8

      Report Post »  
    • loriann12
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 6:02am

      Sounds to me like he got threatened. “Climate change” and all it’s policies are big money for someone. Al Gore comes to mind for one. You don‘t think one guy saying it’s all bunk is going to stop them, do you?

      Report Post »  
    • chezhockey
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 11:26am

      @Educator101

      HAARP??? Really? Come on, don’t bring wacky conspiracy theory into this discussion. HAARP does NOT have anything to do with controlling the weather. It’s sole purpose is to study the ionosphere to increase the effectiveness of communications and possibly surveillance techniques utilizing the natural magnetic properties of the earth.

      Lets keep on task here with the real conspiracy, the lie of man-made global warming which is simply a money maker for the scientists and an attempt to redistribute the wealth of the world.

      Report Post »  
    • Melvin Spittle
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 7:26pm

      Educator101 I guess if you do not understand the science behind the technology it must be evil. You are a kook. Change your screen name to TINFOIL101.

      Report Post » Melvin Spittle  
  • Steverino
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:45pm

    I have a very simple test to pass for these MMGW alarmists:
    When our meteorological geniuses can predict what the weather will be like ANYWHERE, ONE WEEK INTO THE FUTURE, with a consistent 90% accuracy, I’ll gladly lend some credence to their “sky is falling” scenarios.
    Hell, I may actually settle for somewhere in the 50% accuracy range.
    10 years into the future? Give me a freakin’ break.
    Steve

    Report Post »  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 12:55am

      THANK YOU!

      Only a Liberal could watch his local weatherman screw up a 9-day forecast, but then listen to an educated Harvard idiot state he can accurately predict Global Weather Patterns 50 years in the future. That‘s the dumbest darned thing I’ve ever heard.

      Report Post » Jaycen  
    • HUNITHUNIT
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:10am

      You morons have STILL yet to figure out that weather and climate are not the same thing!!! It is really not that difficult of a concept, but I guess all that tea brewing is distracting.

       
    • paulusmaximus
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:57am

      For hunithunit, Are you saying that there is no relationship to weather and climate or that one is science while the other isn’t? If weather isn‘t related to climate you have already lost the argument for global warming and if you say one or the other isn’t science you lose again.

      Report Post » paulusmaximus  
    • stargazer01
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 4:57pm

      MMGW. Would that be short for Michael Mann Global Warming?

      Report Post »  
  • Katydidnt
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:01pm

    FOOBEAR, You need to realize something. When scientists say that CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere. They are not talking 4%. It is .000382 percent of the atmosphere. That is all of it. The fast majority of that is not man-made, but naturally occuring. The man-made carbon dioxide can only be reduced by a small amount. If you stopped everything, you might be able to reduce the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere by .00002. CO2 over the history of the earth has varied wildly, and yet life was created and sustained. From a geological perspective, we are in a CO2 drought. It was on a several millenia drop, and only slightly came up since the late 1800′s.

    So, .999618 percent of the atmosphere is not CO2, We at most can bring that percentage to .999638 of the atmosphere. Plants need CO2, it is used or created in many necessary biological processes, are we sure we want to reduce it?
    It is a bunch of hooey, meant to control commerce and redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the third world countries. That is their solution to Global Warming, give me money. Percentages are close but from memory.

    Report Post »  
    • Katydidnt
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:11pm

      I’m back with actual percentages from Wikipedia. Total CO2 is .039 percent of the atmosphere. That is .00039. That is total CO2, man’s portion of the CO2 is 2.75 of the total amount, or .00001. I overstated how much man produced. So, if we stopped everything and went back to the stone ages, minus the fire to keep warm we could reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to .00038

      That incrediblely small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is just not going to cause catastrophic weather changes.

      Report Post »  
    • HUNITHUNIT
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 11:39am

      im not sure how .039=.00039…but whatever

      Report Post »  
    • SnowKalBebes
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 12:42pm

      Please dont use wikipedia as a source, it shows how clueless you are

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 5:49pm

      HUNITHUNIT Wrote:
      “Im not sure how .039=.00039…but whatever”

      Actually it doesn’t, the way you typed it, but if you don’t understand what Katy was talking about, you should not be calling other people morons.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Melvin Spittle
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 7:16pm

      Who let HUNITHUNIT sit at the adult table? HUNITHUNIT, if you are to continue to sit at the adult table, please keep up with the conversation.

      Report Post » Melvin Spittle  
    • HUNITHUNIT
      Posted on September 7, 2011 at 8:20am

      CO2 represents almost 4 hundredths of one percent of the earths atmosphere per your source, or .039.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on September 7, 2011 at 1:50pm

      @HUNIT

      Are you trying to say that .039 = “almost 4 hundredths of one percent” ?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
  • dadsrootbeer
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:59pm

    Just as this is the dark days of journalism so it is for climate research.

    Report Post » dadsrootbeer  
  • Doug in Seattle
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:59pm

    Foobear, get your facts straight, then come back.

    The fact that there is still a debate after more than 20 years is because we have yet to get any firm answers from the hundreds of billions of our tax dollars that been poured into the climate science black hole.

    Those hundreds of billions have created a pile of worthless paper and computer models that can’t predict even 10 years of climate change.

    By the way, unless you haven’t noticed, the climate stopped warming over ten years ago. Meanwhile the claims of “future” warming get more and more absurd.

    Some of us have studied science and know that when a theory fails it is time to look in a different direction for the answer. Please don’t waste our time with your talking points from Soros.

    Report Post » Doug in Seattle  
    • weeblewacker1
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 10:51am

      wow!! really? oh-well,more fox news “facts”

      Report Post »  
    • Melvin Spittle
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 7:29pm

      weeblewacker1
      Oh wow really? oh-well,more weeblewacker1 senseless drivel.

      Report Post » Melvin Spittle  
    • foobear
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 10:45pm

      Get what facts straight? The facts that I posted are uncontestable, namely:
      1) The earth has been warming
      2) CO2 levels have been rising
      3) Human activities have been responsible for most of the CO2 gain.
      4) CO2 allows in more shortwave radiation and reflects more longwave radiation. (You can do this in a physics lab if you don’t believe me.) Therefore, atmospheric CO2 will create a radiative forcing.

      Once you move on from there is where the actual debate is at, especially when it comes to modelling the future. But most Blaze readers are still stuck wrapping their heads around points 1 through 4 above.

      They‘re like Young Earth Creationists that steadfastly claim the Earth is 5000 years old but can’t explain how there could be light from stars more than 5000 light years away reaching us right now.

      I’m not sure how educating people on the basic, uncontestable, facts of the issue makes me a pawn of Soros, Doug. Hell, I’ve exploded a lot of the lies Al Gore told in An Inconvenient Truth.

      Report Post » foobear  
  • Talmid of Yeshua
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:58pm

    As with scientists who believe in Creationism, those who question global warming, are ran out of the science world.

    Science has become a doctrine of the liberal religion, even ignoring real science facts.

    Liberalism is both a twisted religion and a mental disorder.

    Report Post » Talmid of Yeshua  
  • abbygirl1994
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:53pm

    Yo Al…………… you have been had… the left as always is full of lies… we’re onto you.. you have bilked country after country… and soon maybe they will wake up to your tricks.. and I hope they hound you.. You see we have God on our side and your lies just don’t work anymore. Oh the history books will write your history like Obama‘s and Clinton’s and oh Georgie Soros.. .. evil men evil combinations! I just hope soon your world will crumble around you!

    Report Post » abbygirl1994  
    • jzs
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:20pm

      Thank you Blaze. I didn‘t think you you’d bring this up. For those of you who missed it here’s the thread:

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-study-of-nasa-data-may-debunk-global-warming-predictions/

      Here is a typical response:

      Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on July 28, 2011 at 12:44pm
      Indeed, the global warming garbage (or whatever they keep changing the name too) is nothing but a UN mandate for theft on a global scale; one admitted to, admitted as a human fabrication, and one that many unfortunatelytunatly have fallen for.

      This“peer reviewed” article that claimed to “debunk” global warming was bolonie, and you bought it hook, line and sinker. The editor has resigned for publishing the artticle.

      But still SNOWLEOPARD links this article to a UN conspiracy to take over the world.

      Yes SNOWLEOPRD, the UN is going to take over the world using global warming as a pretext. And you and your flock will soon be enslaved in a FEMA concentration camp. But afterward you’ll rise up and fight the oppressors who have imprisoned you. And you, man of God, will lead them to victory and freedom! And your glory shall be everlasting!

      Report Post » jzs  
    • ozz
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 12:27am

      JZS you are a donkey and a half. Go back to the huffingpaintpost where you belong. No one is buying your snake oil here.

      Report Post » ozz  
    • designbyinspiration
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 12:33am

      Agreed abbygirl. Well said.

      Report Post »  
    • Captain Crunch
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 1:35am

      @JZS

      You’re just jeolous. BTW…Snowleopard is a lady…that would make her more like Joan of Ark riding through France on a white horse with a gleeming steel sword in her hand. Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord.

      Report Post »  
    • Captain Crunch
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 1:43am

      @JZS

      What do you do? Hold grudges about peoples comments here and keep records?
      You need to discontinue your internet service and take a break from this.

      Report Post »  
    • sissykatz
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 2:48am

      Jzs

      You are such a pathetic little person, with your petty little gripes. No one listens or reads what you post unless you attack on of ours and you are never going to win one of those.I think you really like to have people upset. But as I say we don’t care what you write, we don’t read it , just skip over it, unless you have started your ad hominem attacks against our friends. Go away little bug. you are just
      like having little gnats around to just swat at occasionally. And almost as relevent. SHOO,SHOO NOW

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 11:30am

      Sissy, I think I’ll stay. I think it does people good to be exposed to the real world sometimes. For example, in the real world there is a near universal consensus among scientists, thousands of experts in the field of climate science, that mankind is contributing to global warming. In your world, Rush Limbaugh has the final say on scientific issues.

      FYI, quoting someone’s post is not a ad hominem attack. Maybe you should look that word up before using it again.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • HUNITHUNIT
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 11:48am

      well done JZS….i lol’d

      Report Post »  
    • EddardinWinter
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 1:27pm

      JZS, please do not leave.

      While many times your comments raise my blood pressure, your perspective is needed here. I will give you props for admitting when you are wrong (like when you assumed blaze would not follow up on this thread). I also think the site is better for a non-homogeneous post population placing comments. Otherwise, this is just the opposite side of the coin to Huffpo, and there is nothing special about that site at all. Surely we are not so insecure that we cannot stand to have our positions challenged, are we? There can be no debate without contrast.

      Report Post » EddardinWinter  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 4:35pm

      @HUNITHUNIT

      Could you explain to us exactly why you LOL’d ?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • jzs
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 10:02pm

      Hello Blazers, I’ve been hacked. That last post wasn’t mine. I’m JZS, not J Z S. That‘s the second time that’s happened. The right is coming after me! I guess I shouldn’t posted the origin of my avatar. Is there any new low the that people will stoop to?

      My username is JZS not J Z S. Maybe the blaze will shut this person out. Hope so.

      Report Post » jzs  
  • thegr8restoration
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:52pm

    I find it intresting how the “establishment” tend to surpress and destroy any and all people who raise question to the “theory” of man made global warming. Its kind of like the way the “establishment” treated Gallaleo…….and they call us flat earthers. What next? Maby inquisitions, bring up herasy charges, inprisonment,or worse exicution. Wagner obviously is a witch and should be burned for blaspheming our lord and savior Al Gore.

    Report Post »  
  • sooner12
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:33pm

    I advise Glenn to pick a Right-to-Work state.

    Report Post »  
  • cookcountypatriot
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:33pm

    only incredibly stupid people believe in man made global warming…michael savage was right..liberalism is a mental disorder…..progressivisn is insanity….

    Report Post » cookcountypatriot  
    • vennoye
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 2:00am

      Well, Reuters is reporting that 40% of Europeans suffer from “mental illness”…….sounds like a perfect place for progressives to me!!

      Report Post » vennoye  
    • Jenny Lind
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:11am

      That’s because their gene pool suffered when all those with brains and guts came to America.

      Report Post »  
  • foobear
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:27pm

    Pielke is one of the foremost AGW skeptics in the world. Naturally, the Blaze doesn’t mention this, as keeping with its tradition of journalistic integrity.

    Report Post » foobear  
    • Doug in Seattle
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:45pm

      Both the Pielke’s, Sr. and Jr. are on the record as subscribing to the human caused global warming theory.. Where they differ from the IPCC is in how much they attribute man. To the luddites of the IPCC that makes them AGW skeptics.

      Report Post » Doug in Seattle  
  • eramthgin
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:27pm

    Pushed him off the roof for telling the truth.

    Report Post » eramthgin  
    • Exrepublisheep
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:31pm

      Guilt for shilling for big oil.

      Report Post » Exrepublisheep  
    • Doug in Seattle
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:46pm

      Sheepdip lies. No oil money is funding NASA, unless you count taxes.

      Report Post » Doug in Seattle  
    • oriondma05
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:54pm

      @PubeSheep – I work for “big oil”.. Why don’t you just through out your computer, TV, car, bike, clothes, fridge, central a/c and any other modern comforts you have, because without “big oil”, pathetic turds like yourself would have nothing.

      I’d gladly watch one of you ******** try to hack it a week in the oilfield. Working 120 in Texas/Oklahoma or -20 in Utah, with 90-120 hour weeks, sleeping in pickup trucks and using porta Johns. It‘s almost sad that my work for the past 5 years affords you the lifestyle that you’re so against.

      Don’t like “big oil” give it all up b!tch, otherwise close your mouth and kick rocks. Real men don’t need government $$$ to make a successful business.

      Report Post » oriondma05  
  • piper60
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:26pm

    He should not have resigned. I wonder if somebody attempted to blackmail him in some way. Either that, or he could have been bribed to resign.

    Report Post » piper60  
  • Americanaiko
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:25pm

    Nice quotes on refuting the Editors claims. All a “normal part of science”. Recently they estimated that there are over 8 million species yet to be disovered. 8 MILLION. That is a very big number.
    I have said many times that scientists are constantly amazing themselves. Imagine if they actually had to prove what they say to get the money….instead of the other way around.

    Report Post » Americanaiko  
  • DrJen
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:06pm

    The BBC states that “Remote Sensing’s core topic is methods for monitoring aspects of the Earth from space.”

    And that is precisely what Drs. Spencer and Braswell do. They work satellite data that examines aspects of the Earth’s atmosphere.

    As a physicist I am outraged with the treatment of this particular research. This is pure politics and has nothing to do with science whatsoever. Let’s face it, Spencer and Braswell’s paper would likely not have been accepted in the so-called “climate science” journals because they didn’t get the “politically correct” answer that man-made global warming is going to kill us. That PC belief is used to justify the huge amount of money currently being dumped into the climate “research” blackhole. It is very hard to comprehend how deeply the hard sciences have fallen into “post normal science”.

    The reality is that no one knows what the feedback factor should be in the climate models. If one assumes that it is positive enough, you could get the hot and crispy planet of Al Gore’s prophecies. On the other hand, the factor just might be negative as the research in question suggests.

    I have an idea. Let’s kick the politicians, especially the UN, out of science and see what the data has to say. My $0.02

    Report Post »  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:14pm

      Great idea indeed.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • capitalismrocks
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:25pm

      Well, with only a few decades of Data to examine, a mere “blink” in terms of the earths history – space science on global climate is scant in its data and models, there is no long term data and no real window of comparative data other then a few decades, the fact is, without space science data from 150+ years ago, there is honestly no way to make any formulated claims as to the full nature or impact of climate change, nor ANY ability to factor in the amount of it that is man-made, it simply is not a fundamentally sound platform with which to be used as a reference tool.

      Report Post » capitalismrocks  
    • Doug in Seattle
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:49pm

      As an earth scientist I heartily support your proposal.

      Report Post » Doug in Seattle  
  • paperpushermj
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:02pm

    And the Beat Goes On

    Report Post » paperpushermj  
  • lonewolf57
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:55pm

    How sad.The USA government has ran out of $cash$ for bribes to ‘scientists’.

    Report Post » lonewolf57  
  • vennoye
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:54pm

    Don’t know about scientists in global warming, but I have read about what was done to scientists who did NOT go along with the “politically” desired scientific “results” in biotechnology and genetic-modification of plants and seeds. Big government, Big business and Educational research grants all go hand and hand!! Research grants can be given……….and they can be taken away!

    Report Post » vennoye  
  • Pigpen
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:53pm

    WHAT? Chicken Little was wrong? The sky is NOT falling? I don’t have to walk to work and put a composting toilet in my house? Wow! Next you will be telling me that Man-Bear-Pig isn’t real either…

    Report Post » Pigpen  
  • Rayblue
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:51pm

    So he’s admitting that the data was one sided. Slanted, erroneous, flawed, unscrupulously inept,
    dismissible, flatly deniable, pettily poopified, chicken fried, countryfied, lemon squeezed and
    quasi-queezed, truly sad and twicely bagged, nicely wrapped and bottlely capped,
    canned and heated, three foot feeted, how in the worlded, twisted twirlded,
    Global warming, false alarming , one more time ?, not on my dime.

    Report Post » Rayblue  
  • whatisay
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:48pm

    Everything published about “global warming” MUST be approved by Al Gore, the scientific genius who earned a D in his college basic science class.

    Report Post »  
    • Greenwood
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:06pm

      Al Gore said just below the earth surface it was millions of degrees. The earth has a fever

      Report Post » Greenwood  
    • Bill Rowland
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 5:33am

      And he invented the internet

      Psalm 109:8

      Report Post »  
  • progressiveslayer
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:46pm

    Man made global warming is a fraud and Al Gore and anyone else perpetrating this fraud should be sued for trillions of dollars and put put of business.

    Report Post » progressiveslayer  
  • Chuck Stein
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:42pm

    “the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell 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” AS IF a paper that fuels hysteria about global warming would have to be moderated by sceptics?

    Report Post »  
  • TRONINTHEMORNING
    Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:26pm

    These global warming lies slowly but surely get the spotlight. And you know, common sense tells us it’s a fraud and thank God for common sense.

    Report Post »  
    • taxed
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:36pm

      Very interesting. It is sad that this scam has become so large and encompassing so much cult-like following that even some smart people give this credence. If you believe in AGW, you are not very intelligent, sad to say. This guy is doing the right thing by at least showing some bit of ethics.

      http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/index.php?board=1.0

      Report Post »  
    • SPOT_OF_TEA
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 9:49pm

      Common sense will not get reported to the general public.

      Report Post » SPOT_OF_TEA  
    • foobear
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 10:38pm

      Global warming is a lie? Really?

      The earth is certainly getting warmer.

      Atmospheric CO2 concentration is certainly rising, and is mostly due to human CO2 output. You can calculate, in fact, rather easily the amount of CO2 generated by people, divide it by the volume of the earth, and get a reasonably accurate estimate that matches the observed numbers.

      CO2 certainly allows short wavelength light through, and tends to trap long wavelength light. You can do this in any physics lab, if you want.

      These things are not really debatable.

      There’s parts of climate science that are less understood, such as the impact of clouds on global warming (they have a high albedo, so they reflect light, but they also trap heat, so it matters WHERE they are), the melt rate of the Greenland ice, feedback mechanisms, and so forth.

      So estimates of the global average temps in the future have a lot of uncertainty in them, due to three major reasons: 1) Climate models can only give approximations of the energy exchanges, 2) The above mechanisms are not fully understood (which is what the Spencer paper is about), and 3) We don’t know what humans will do in the future.

      The Spencer paper didn’t really prove anything at all, it questioned a certain constant used in climate modeling, and was a very very rough back of the envelope calculation that didn’t agree with other papers on the topic.

      Report Post » foobear  
    • beekeeper
      Posted on September 5, 2011 at 11:15pm

      @FOOBEAR – In the 70′s the data “proved” an Ice Age was coming [1]… Now, some 30 years later, new data added to the old data “proves” we are going to suffer massive global warming.[2]

      I want the scientists to explain what changed in those last thirty-fourty years, and how do we know we won’t be back to the “Ice Age” phase of the cycle in another 30-40 years?

      Seems to me that if CO2 is the problem, and you attribute it to the number of humans on the earth (population growth), than the answer lies in a) planting more fauna that will convert CO2 to O2, and b) manage the population of th eearth better, letting ever more people drive slightly more efficient cars won’t really make a difference – unless you are in the car business. Same with Solar Panels and Wind Mills… Curiously, the Federal Gov’t in the US is deeply involved in all three – isn’t that “conveinient”?

      [1] Time Magazine, 1974: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

      [2] An Inconvenient Truth: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/

      Report Post » beekeeper  
    • LinkedIn G
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 1:11am

      Al Gore actually ruined it for the global warmers … If he wasn’t such an idiot … they may have pulled the scam off.

      Report Post » LinkedIn G  
    • foobear
      Posted on September 6, 2011 at 10:30pm

      @Beekeeper: Your solution to AGW is, quote, “Planting more fauna”?

      I‘m not sure if you’ve ever raised dogs, sir, but they are not “planted”.

      You might want to come up with a more reasonable solution.

      Report Post » foobear  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love