Comments on: CloudGate Link Farm

By: Climate noise amplification | Lousy Canuck

Climate noise amplification | Lousy Canuck — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 02:04:23 +0000

[…] also Greg’s list of links at X […]

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 19:27:07 +0000

In reply to Ender93. Thanks for volunteering to organize this! It will be great!

By: Ender93

Ender93 — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 19:11:40 +0000

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.”

By: Realist

Realist — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 14:05:27 +0000

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.]

SCORE:
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 letâ€™s look at the core reason for the Editor-in-Chiefâ€™s resignation, in his own words, because I want to strenuously object to it:

â€¦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 paperâ€™s starting point! We dealt with specifics, numbers, calculationsâ€¦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 IPCCâ€™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.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-from-fallout-over-our-paper/