You won’t be reading this on a lot of the websites that trumpeted the paper, so I thought I’d do my bit to get the message out there…
…If you are interested in the issue of climate change you may remember that in July the scientific journal Remote Sensing published a report that was said by the usual suspects to show that the scientific consensus on climate change was wrong.
Well, now the editor of Remote Sensing has resigned and stated that the paper should never have been published. Serious issues have been raised about the paper’s methodology and whether it met the standards that should be expected of a scientific paper.
Read more here.
Always pays to remember that the truth is not democratic and just because you want something to be true – and you are very rich – that does not make it so.
Related articles
- Scientific Journal Editor Resigns Over Climate Change Denier’s Paper (littlegreenfootballs.com)
- Editor resigns over climate paper (bbc.co.uk)
- Climate Change Knowledge Engine (clicke.lmi.org)
- Journal Editor Quits Over Climate Change Hullabaloo (newser.com)
- Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing agrees that Spencer and Braswell (2011) should not have been published; resigns [Deltoid] (scienceblogs.com)
cartesian product ... stuff about computing mostly 
3 responses to “Climate change paper “should never have been published””
So where is the published peer reviewed scientific paper that properly refutes the paper published by Remote Sensing.
This is the proper scientific way to show a paper has errors etc is it not?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Thanks for the comment, but I don’t think its necessary for a peer reviewed reply to be written to a paper which is obviously flawed – as the article linked here suggests that it is (eg lack of discussion of error bars). Rather it should not have been accepted for publication and the author asked to make changes if he wished to see it published.
That is what should happen now – a better paper should be written – if, that is, the evidence is there.
How do you know it is obviously flawed? Have you read it? Do you have sufficient knowledge and understanding on the matter to make a judgement yourself?
Just because the editor lost his job over it means nothing about the quality of the research.
We are talking about science here, not the surrounding politics.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com