Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Frankely, a bit of a stretch | Main | Brooke on the Stirling FOI case »
Saturday
Sep032011

Critiques and responses

There is still huge interest in the Remote Sensing affair and quite what this means for the climate debate is still unclear.

One aspect of the story that has attracted a great deal of comment is the fact that Remote Sensing has not retracted the paper. As Retraction Watch puts it:

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?

Remote Sensing has now made it clear that they will not be retracting the paper.

It seems clear from Wagner's resignation letter that his understanding of the alleged flaws in Spencer's paper came from blog posts like the one at RC; there is, as yet, no formal critique of the paper in the literature. It therefore seems fairly clear that Wagner's resignation was prompted by blog posts and perhaps word of mouth from Spencer's rivals. If so, this is extraordinary and quite an indictment of climate science.

Apparently there is going to be a formal critique of the paper, which will be published in GRL in the near future. This will be interesting for sure, but one has to wonder why a critique of a paper in Remote Sensing would be published in GRL; of course the suspicion will be that the authors will expect an easy ride from the editors there. We know that prominent climatologists have expressed their satisfaction with the "plugging" of the "leaks" that had been seen at that journal in the past. Remote Sensing, on the other hand, is presumably much more of an unknown quantity to them.

And if GRL publishes a critique, what then? Will Spencer be allowed to respond? Let's hope that new editor-in-chief Eric Calais has a better grasp of the journal's rules than his predecessor, Jay Famiglietti.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (205)

I've been trying to understand the purely scientific arguments given for this resignation (I ignore the possibility that S&B might have an agenda. Who doesn't?). The arguments given are extraordinarily weak. First, there is the citation of paper by Trenberth and Fasullo. Although this is, rather vaguely, relevant, it is really concerned with "refuting" Lindzen and Choi. It has nothing to do with S&B. So what's left are blog postings. People are referring in particular to the posting by Trenberth and Fasullo on the Real Climate blog. This is good knockabout stuff, but it is impossible to see the posting as a serious refutation of anything. The final paragraphs, for example, simply comprise assertions and would certainly not get past a peer-review filter. The posting neatly illustrates that some models do better than others. But even so, the claim that the best fitting model (MPI-Echam5) "replicates the observations very well" is only asserted as an opinion. You can't do science by simply looking at graphs. No goodness of fit statistics are given - indeed, there are no statistics at all. That's okay - why should there be? - it's a blog posting after all. But why on earth the editor of a serious journal should resign after reading stuff like this is beyond me. Of course, it's possible that a more considered refutation is in press somewhere. In which case why not wait to see what it says? Since grounds have not already emerged leading to the paper's withdrawal, it's hard to see why the editor should see himself as responsible for its content. If B&S are seriously wrong, they will be ignored - that's the fate of error in science.

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kennedy

Uh oh - BDD is approaching the all caps phase...

An editor resigning does not refute a scientific paper, no matter how much one might, shout, gesticulate, or passionately desire that to be the case.

An editor resigning is an indication of an orthodoxy gone mad (along with its adherents).

That is all that there is to be said on the subject.

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

Theo Goodwin

What is said in public (newspapers, news shows, blogs, and so on) about a published paper should have no impact on an editor's (honorary show editor) judgment regarding the operation of his journal past, present, or future. The fact that Wolfgang published this thought shows that he is willing to put his journal and its employees at risk for what amounts to an irrelevancy.

No. Still clinging resolutely to the wrong end of the stick. See my response to geronimo above. It's starting to look like Wagner was put in an untenable position by the actions of his superior. Things turned very public and embarrasing, so he resigned. He may not have even been aware of what was happening until it was too late. That's certainly the strong impression from his written statement.

So he still screwed up (naivety, inattention to detail), but was more sinned against than sinning. The journal and its employees are being put at risk by the managing editor, not the now-departed Wagner.

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

ZT

Uh oh, ZT is approaching the point of no return:

An editor resigning is an indication of an orthodoxy gone mad (along with its adherents).

That is all that there is to be said on the subject.

I don't mind the nonsense, but can we stop the infantile asides?

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

All

Can we keep a lid on it please.

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:16 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

BBD

.......Remember, I have been commenting here for several years. I have read most of your contributions, so I have a reasonably clear picture of where you stand.......

and

Remember, I've been coming here for a long time. I've read some astonishing stuff from you.

Apart from a certain lack of originality, there seems to be a touch of menace in these observations.

A hint of "nice post you got there guv" combined with "we know where you live".

Are you Greenpeace by any chance?

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterFoxgoose

Bish, could you ask BBD and Andrew for a time-out. Their spamming the thread is making it unreadable. :)

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterShona

"It's starting to look like Wagner was put in an untenable position by the actions of his superior."

I see the expert theory has already morphed from He Screwed Up to He Was Cornered.

Andrew

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterBad Andrew

"Can we keep a lid on it please."

Well said Bish, I tried to stay with it for awhile, then eventually gave up and scrolled down through the opinionated "discourse"? with the hope of finding something other than intransigence, gave up. Good to see your indication of your ownership of this blog, it was beginning to look as though others thought differently.

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Sir John Houghton - co chair IPCC Third assesment report(TAR): speaking in my local church last year - Supporting Transition Towns

entitled: God Science and Global Warming, slide show, and audio are all available here..
http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/12/is-the-road-to-green-hell-paved-with-good-intentions/

Houghton: “Haven’t we first to tackle World
Poverty, then Climate Change?

NO,

because unless
we tackle Climate Change now,
the plight of many of the poorest
will be enormously worse”

And Houghton:

“God is Creator
Science is God’s science”
and
“Pharoah & Joseph had
7 YEARS
So have we

2016″


So the BBC mentions Spencer's 'christianity' which to a usa audience = sceptic= denier= creationist anti evolutionary ignore him..

yet the Rev Gene Wahl writes papers with the Hockey stick team,and Houghton gets no mention.
Not that any of it should matter,

but I think it may not effect their science, but I do think it effects their view of the world in the political arena, ie evil capatilaist in denial idea that they self perpetuate as it fits with their world view

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

BBD

Here are my answers to your answers (blockquotes), to my questions (bold) and my admittedly edited highlights of your answers, and my further retorts (knowing anyone who gives a f*ck can look up the thread):

1) Show where Spencer exaggerated the paper.

He did absolutely nothing of any consequence to correct the media misrepresentation ...

He didn't correct in your didactic mind. so just say so. Not active misrepresentation. You're slipping.

2) Show where he "looked through a telescope the wrong way" My euphemism for he f*cked up in some clear instrument usage

SB11's deliberate use of a flawed 1D climate model and tweaking thereof to achieve desired results.
....... yadda yadda

Diputatious about models. This is the meat of the paper a model is not reality so essentialy you are claiming that some "interpretation of a model of reality equates to misuse of a telescope in real life. Sorry That answer doesn't pass the 4 orange pips could be the moons of Jupiter test.

3) falsified data - speaks for itself

[No, you are forcing words into my mouth. Falsified, no. Misrepresented, yes. Response as per (2)]

It is a straight question which you elaborate upon stupidly without just saying "No"


Read back your original disputations of my postings that *forced* me to clausify in 4 ways my assumed bog standard paragraph and then get back to me about who is about forcing people ;)


4) been been in the pay of deniers - speaks for itself.

Deniers? Or simply those who would prefer not to see strong curbs on emissions in US energy policy? He's been taking Exxon's money for years. See here for the details. Read it all - it's illuminating.


Illuminating? You simplify your answer with a link to a page of such utter condeming intenstity that my eyes fell out with boredom.

No I have seen all that crap many times before. Utterly pointless you can't answer the denier question without falling into the trap of just linking to a site you've seen before that makes you feel good when some would have been more impressively silent.

BBD You have answered with a quality with each point with guff when some would have been more impressively silent.

I could give a shit about you.

Keep up your "science" answers though ;)

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

BBD writes:

"I follow Spencer's blog fairly closely, and I assure you that I have read the post you link. What makes you think that I haven't?"

Isn't it obvious, because you appear to have no respect for his work. Is his Phd no good? Is his work with the Aqua Satellite and AMSU irrelevant to Remote Sensing and the exercise of comparing observations (from remote sensors) to models? Furthermore, was the managing editor incompetent? Were the three reviewers, 2 of whom requested and obtained changes in the paper, incompetent? Are their Phd's no good? The journal has apparently chosen not to retract the paper? Are they wrong?

These people chose to publish the paper. Why is "publish then criticise" somehow worse in this case than not publish at all (or as I provocatively call censor)? Who says so? You and Trenberth? You are arguing from authority (Trenberths). I am too, however I am arguing for a plurality of authority as opposed to a dictatorship of authority.

BTW BBD, these are rhetorical questions. Should you choose to respond, enjoy yourself in the light that I will granting you the last word, as I am quite sure you can dig yourself a nice deep hole all by yourself.

Anyway, my purpose in originally commenting here was to draw peoples attention to Spencers response to the one plausibly mitigating factor in the otherwise unseemly Wagner resignation drama. Specifically the " S&B11 is already addresed by Trenberth et al 2010" argument. I will let Spencer speak for himself now and the readers can decide for themselves.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/a-primer-on-our-claim-that-clouds-cause-temperature-change/

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:42 PM | Unregistered Commenterdkkraft

Ok, we are up to three pages BUT so far no one has actually pointed to anything that was wrong with Spencers paper.

With this many comments and nothing actually pointed out by the Mann Made Global Warming (tm) cultists that probably says more about their desperation than it does about any problems with Spencers paper.

Mailman

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Foxgoose

Are you Greenpeace by any chance?

No. I can't abide anti-nuclear greens, as everyone here who has read my comments on energy threads will know. Interesting diversionary tactic though.

Shona

My comments are on topic and just about polite. Hence not spam. I stopped talking to Andrew at 7:58pm after saying this at 7:32pm:

I have already pleaded with you to up your game, as much for the sake of others here as for myself.
.

Green Sand

Good to see your indication of your ownership of this blog, it was beginning to look as though others thought differently.

Oh. So reasoned disagreement is not appropriate on this thread. I see.

Andrew (with apologies to Shona)

I see the expert theory has already morphed from He Screwed Up to He Was Cornered.

No. See my reply to Theo Goodwin at 9:12pm

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Leopard

I don't think there's enough substance in your reply to merit a further response. And you are becoming abusive.

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD is a bit of a seltrighteous bore if i may say so. Not sure if he is actually telling something useful.

if tolerance is so low in this "New Science" , how come all the crap reports on the warmist side do not cause resignations. In fact has 1 person resigned allready at UEA CRU , the IPCC etc ?

All this postering around peer reviews and jockeying for publications does not contribute too much to science really.

first of all science is not the stacking of wisdom in excellent reports. That's more the fief of professorships aiming for a vice chancellorship.

Bring on wikipedia and dump the lot, today.
It only takes some responsible leadership to do that.
Unfortunately we do not have that.

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:53 PM | Unregistered Commentertutut

are the geography students on a trip or something?
Somebody is posting far too much

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:55 PM | Unregistered Commentertutut

students sorry ,I meant : pupils
apologies.

if their 16 you call them pupils right?

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:56 PM | Unregistered Commentertutut

Well observed, Mailman!

Sep 3, 2011 at 9:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

dkkraft

There are two possibilities to entertain:

1) Spencer is right but the rest of the field of atmospheric physics is too enslaved by prior commitment to see it

2) Spencer is wrong and the sceptics are too enslaved by prior commitment to see it

On the evidence so far, it looks as though there are several serious flaws in SB11. For me, this suggests option (1) is where to place your bets.

Sep 3, 2011 at 10:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

The impression I get from Wagner's letter is nothing more than had he known the reaction the paper would cause he wouldn't have let it go out. Even though it passed muster in the peer-review process and that there is absolutely no requirement for a paper getting published to be correct.

BBD said:

Note how 'the managing editor' becomes 'the editorial team' that 'unintentionally' selected sceptic reviewers. There are so few in the field, it would be impossible to select three 'unintentionally'.

How many are there? We have no way of knowing what criteria Wagner used to determine this was a case of pal-review rather than peer-review.

If they are doing their role correctly and have their scientist hat on it shouldn't matter what their inclination; warmer, ambivalent, sceptic, etc. The reviewer's job is to dot 'i's and cross 't's, make sure the science is repeatable. They are there to prevent bad science not incorrect science and nothing in Wagner's letter provides evidence of the paper being bad.

Sep 3, 2011 at 10:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterGareth

Hi Phinnie

Sorry, but I don't think I can face your blistering insights tonight, so forgive me if I do not respond. Bang away though - it's always amusing.

Sep 3, 2011 at 10:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

I don't think there's enough substance in your reply to merit a further response. And you are becoming abusive.

Which of those two atomic observation of yours is the most important reason for not responding to me?

The alleged abuse? Or the clear over-powering substance of my layman points?

Sep 3, 2011 at 10:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

Leopard

Oh, the clear over-powering substance of your layman points, definitely.

Sep 3, 2011 at 10:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Take it away BBD ...

Sep 3, 2011 at 10:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

Chaps

Take it to discussion board please.

Sep 3, 2011 at 10:21 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

I wonder; did anybody resign over Mann's papers? Steig's papers??

Sep 3, 2011 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterHoi Polloi

OK BBD, you don't seem hot on gentle hints-you have become the pub bore. Your last 54 posts add nothing that your 54 first didn't already say. But don't worry I'm leaving the blog. So carry onto your hearts content! For those interested there's a fascinating thread on the philosophy of science at wuwt. Cheers!

Sep 3, 2011 at 10:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterShona

Well, I tried.

Sep 3, 2011 at 10:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD writes:

"So he still screwed up (naivety, inattention to detail), but was more sinned against than sinning. The journal and its employees are being put at risk by the managing editor, not the now-departed Wagner."

I see Wolfgang's resignation letter as a cry for help. If you take it literally, it is simply incoherent.

Sep 3, 2011 at 10:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

@BBD

He did absolutely nothing of any consequence to correct the media misrepresentation

OMG, he didn't?! That must be the ultimate sin. Of course you can provide us with lots of evidence that the leading lights of "climate science" invariably take steps to monitor and ensure that the media do not misrepresent their claims. And that when they find such "misrepresentation", they take very public steps to correct the record.

But speaking of "misrepresentation", resignations and Trenberth ...perhaps you would care to explain why Trenberth (along with Mann, Schmidt, Tobis and Mandia) has done absoultely nothing to correct the record regarding his 2010 faulty "reconstruction" of Landsea's 2004 withdrawal from participation in the IPCC's AR4.

At the same time, perhaps you would care to explain why the IPCC has done "absolutely nothing of any consequence to correct the media misrepresentation" of the May 2011 "approval" of the SRREN.

Sep 3, 2011 at 10:39 PM | Unregistered Commenterhro001

I have just read through this entire thread, and can't remember what the original post was about.

Could Miss Marple do a "whodunnit" summary (over a nice cup of tea in the sitting room) please?

Sep 3, 2011 at 10:53 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

One thing I've learnt from this long thread is the character of some of the regular posters. Just as some commenters on Climate Etc and WUWT immediately get up my nose I think I've sussed out a couple on this blog too - comments to avoid as being prejudiced, pompous, or trolling (repeatedly airing irrelevancies and stirring up the nest). Very informative post. Whatever anyone says, data should take preference over models, every time.

Sep 3, 2011 at 11:19 PM | Unregistered Commentercarol smith

carol smith

I do not apologise for being off-message. Like you, I am learning from this thread. Especially about the various ways in which other commenters attempt to shut down dissent.

Sep 3, 2011 at 11:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Could Miss Marple do a "whodunnit" summary (over a nice cup of tea in the sitting room) please?

Golf Charley, the ... uh ... view from here on this particular thread is that BBD has contributed much in support of some elements of my working hypothesis [http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/2/journal-editor-resigns.html?currentPage=2#comments Sep 3, 2011 at 1:45 AM ]

Miss Marples [who would really prefer a nice glass of sherry, rather than a cup of tea, if you don't mind;-) ]

Sep 3, 2011 at 11:32 PM | Unregistered Commenterhro001

2) Spencer is wrong and the sceptics are too enslaved by prior commitment to see it

On the evidence so far, it looks as though there are several serious flaws in SB11. For me, this suggests option (1) is where to place your bets.

well we . at least, I, await a serious refutation... the blogoshere has been totally ad hom and hengist about this paper. so we know that the modelllers' world is in a state of panic.

Sep 3, 2011 at 11:42 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

@BDD "...can we stop the infantile asides?"
@BDD "Especially about the various ways in which other commenters attempt to shut down dissent"

Sep 3, 2011 at 11:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

How about a little light chill?

Lets try a bit of Carly Simon?

"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you
You're so vain, I'll bet you think this song is about you
Don't you? Don't You? "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZmCJUSC6g

Sep 3, 2011 at 11:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Whatever the climate sensitivity is, the maximum has been claimed for CO2's role. Every newly realised or discovered influence, every observed deviation from predictions, drives that toward unity. That is the Achilles heel of the whole construct.

Sep 4, 2011 at 12:03 AM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

It seems to me that the scientific 'quality' of the paper is very much a side issue. It was reviewed and published, it's part of the literature just as many other awful/mediocre/good/innovative/stunningly insightful papers are. As many others have said, peer review is just a first step, time is the great winnower, It appears that the journal will not retract it, so that's that. It's peer reviewed science. Let others publish their technical position and let's see Spencer's formal reply - let us see the public and technical advancement of the subject. That is what's supposed to happen.

Hyping a paper? Spencer's own blogs I find direct, but there's a hint of self effacement in his style too. Compared with the sort of hyping that the Steig Antarctica paper benefited from, it's pretty small beer. The reaction it caused (even prior to the Wagner incident) is extraordinary, at least in the climatoblogosphere. [However, I doubt that if you asked even a well informed man on the Clapham Omnibus who Dr. Spencer was they'd have any clue].

So, why has it generated such paroxysms in the commentariat? Clearly it's perceived as a threat to someone. It has upset egos, it's trodden on contested turf, it likely threatens vested interests and investments.

Egos in the world of science are not new, nor are powerplays and blackballing and all the nasty viciousnes of professional rivalry, jealousy and sniping. This does seem to be a much bigger issue than that though.

If I were playing this game, I'd have arranged to studiously ignore Spencers paper - 'deprive it of the oxygen of publicity' as we used to say. Instead, all the attention says to me that this was a very important paper indeed.

Interesting.

Sep 4, 2011 at 12:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

Hilary

Golf Charley, the ... uh ... view from here on this particular thread is that BBD has contributed much in support of some elements of my working hypothesis

Which is:

So the "in-crowd" - lacking any scientific rebuttal of S&B that could hold up to serious scrutiny - decided that Wagner, the new kid on the journal editing block, should be the multi-purpose diversionary scapegoat.

Which means all hinges on the validity of SB11's results. You think nobody is landing a glove on SB11. I differ. There will obviously be rebuttals in the literature, so we can agree to differ and wait and see how it pans out.

Let's pick it up again when there's more on the table.

Sep 4, 2011 at 12:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Hilary

I should have said - the uncorrected misrepresentation of the WG3 SRREN report is a bona fide disgrace. On this, you and I are as one.

Sep 4, 2011 at 12:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Cumbrian Lad

You need to go no further than your observation:-

"it likely threatens vested interests and investments."

Which benefits from an ongoing stream of possible increasing threats to the world and mankind all problems being "researched" by institutes funded by organisations with vested interests.

Why else would an Insurance company "risk" money on a insignificant trek across parts of the ice in the Arctic?

New research? New data? Just what more do we need to know about our North Pole that can only be found by "the first women to walk solo to the pole"? What is the science/data that only the female of our species can gather?

WALOB

Sep 4, 2011 at 12:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Spencer may be wrong or he may be right. However his paper passed the peer review process and was published. If it is wrong then another paper should be published to challenge it as totally false or to attempt to correct it if it has any merit. The resignation of the editor seems unjustified, over the top and frankly it just stinks of politics.

Sep 4, 2011 at 12:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterFrederick Bloggsworth

Frederick Bloggsworth

Yup, that just about nails it. Well said, no need for further comment, other than to wish Wolfgang Wagner and to say "bis zum nächsten Mal"

We know not where and we know not when but we will meet again!

Sep 4, 2011 at 1:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

BBD and his critics

Should we just await the rushed out rebuttal of the Spencer paper?

Surely it will be more fun?!

Meanwhilie, the economies of the UK, US and Australia are being trashed by AGW histeria

Sep 4, 2011 at 1:10 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

It's quite fascinating to watch that to which some posters choose to respond - and that to which they don't.

In this instance, I note that BBD chose not to address that to which I had specifically invited his reply (following on the heels of his [and/or Wagner's] choosing to highlight an apparent concern that Spencer did "absolutely nothing of any consequence to correct the media misrepresentation").

Yet BBD took the trouble to elevate and spin the preamble to my hypothesis as if it were representative of my position (which - in the context of the matter at hand, i.e. Wagner's ludicrous resignation - it clearly is not).

@BBD Sep 4, 2011 at 12:18 AM

Let's pick it up again when there's more on the table.

BBD, I think you would be wise to consider the words of Jonathan Jones in the earlier thread [Sep 2, 2011 at 9:51 PM], which I believe bear repeating here:

This is truly bizarre, and just shows how profoundly warped the climate science community has become. I make no judgement here on the correctness of the paper, but editors just don't resign because of things like this.

Nobody resigned at Science when they published that utter drivel about bacteria replacing phosphorus with arsenic; they just published seven comments (IIRC) back to back with a rather desperate defence from the original authors.

Nobody resigned at Phys Rev Lett when I trashed a paper (on the evaluation of Gaussian sums) they had selected as one of the leading papers of the month: indeed nobody has formally ever accepted that I was right, but remarkably all the later papers on this subject follow my line.

I have been up to my neck for over a year in a huge row with Iannis Kominis about the underlying quantum mechanics of spin sensing chemical reactions, and either his papers or mine (or just possibly both) are complete nonsense: but nobody has resigned over Koniminis's paper in Phys Rev B or mine in Chem Phys Lett.

Sure, my two controversies above never hit the popular press, but the arsenic stuff was discussed all over the place, far more than Spencer and Braswell.

What sort of weird warped world to climate scientists inhabit? How have they allowed themselves to move so far from comon sense? What is wrong with these guys?

Sep 4, 2011 at 1:13 AM | Unregistered Commenterhro001

golf charley

Surely it will be more fun?!

Yup, of course it will and the "fun" now appears to be coming on a daily basis, and if it continues to come at the present rate eventually a lot of people will start to face real choices

Sep 4, 2011 at 1:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Wow, I wake up in Oz and look what's happened to the thread. BBD -

There are so few in the field, it would be impossible to select three 'unintentionally'

Have a squiz at a Gaussian then re-think the word "impossible"

I'm off to open my father's day presents.

Sep 4, 2011 at 1:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterGrantB

Miss Marple

Phil Jones has still failed to prove that the research data for his Paper on UHI in Natue actually exists.

How can anyone be sure he wasn't comparing urban and rural chinese take away prices?

Phil Jones can't prove ,anything, he has no data.

Why have Nature editors not called Phil Jones to account?

Sep 4, 2011 at 1:34 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>