CloudGate Link Farm

Spread the love

I just posted a summary of the latest rather startling event in Cloud Gate, the curent scandal in the Climate Change Denialist world:

CloudGate: Denialism Gets Dirty, Reputations Are At Stake

Please go have a look and leave any questions you have. If I can’t help you with the questions, I’ll find someone who can.

Meanwhile, this latest event, which involves the resignation of the Editor-in-Chief of a peer reviewed scientific journal, has created a lot of discussion in a very short period of time. Thus, the link farm to help you keep track:

The Original Paper is here.

Wolfgang Wagner’s resignation … is here (pdf).

Blog posts and press reports about the resignation:

Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:

In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.

Spread the love

4 thoughts on “CloudGate Link Farm

  1. Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing Resigns from Fallout Over Our Paper
    September 2nd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
    [NOTE: the August, 2011 temperature update appears below this post.]

    IPCC :1
    Scientific Progress: 0

    [also see updates at end of post]

    It has been brought to my attention that as a result of all the hoopla over our paper published in Remote Sensing recently, that the Editor-in-Chief, Wolfgang Wagner, has resigned. His editorial explaining his decision appears here.

    First, I want to state that I firmly stand behind everything that was written in that paper.

    But let’s look at the core reason for the Editor-in-Chief’s resignation, in his own words, because I want to strenuously object to it:

    …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

    But the paper WAS precisely addressing the scientific arguments made by our opponents, and showing why they are wrong! That was the paper’s starting point! We dealt with specifics, numbers, calculations…while our critics only use generalities and talking points. There is no contest, as far as I can see, in this debate. If you have some physics or radiative transfer background, read the evidence we present, the paper we were responding to, and decide for yourself.

    If some scientists would like do demonstrate in their own peer-reviewed paper where *anything* we wrote was incorrect, they should submit a paper for publication. Instead, it appears the IPCC gatekeepers have once again put pressure on a journal for daring to publish anything that might hurt the IPCC’s politically immovable position that climate change is almost entirely human-caused. I can see no other explanation for an editor resigning in such a situation.

  2. I’m wondering, is there a Global Warming Awareness Day? I mean I know there is Earth day, but maybe something more specific to global warming? If not, I think we should make an attempt to organize one, and on that day spam all denialist boards with rebuttals to all 3 major “proofs” they have against global warming (they are, if you don’t know, climate-gate, last month’s article that is refuted above, and Phil Jone’s quote that was misinterpreted). I’ve never seen a denialist argument that wasn’t centered around at least one of the above, and right now we have undeniable evidence that refutes all of those (Michael Mann’s vindication, cloud-gate, and the real quote from Phil Jones). It’ll be much better to make a coordinated effort than to sporadically attack as a lone wolf and be driven away by shouts of “NO IT’S NOT. NO IT’S NOT.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *