Editor Resignation Roils Climate Waters
Hop on over to the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media, where I have a post on the big story dominating the climate blogosphere these past few days.
Staring today, I’ll be blogging for the Yale Forum several times a week and will link to those posts from here when they go up.
UPDATE: Andy Revkin at Dot Earth has a must-read post that includes a notable interview with Kerry Emanuel. Also, Charlie Petit at The Tracker has a nice round-up.
Folks, if you’re prompted to comment on the Yale post, I’d appreciate it if you did so over there. I’ll certainly be as engaged in the Yale threads of my posts as I am over here.
I have an update in the main body of this post that includes some additional links worth checking out.
So, the expert like Emmanuel thought it was an OK paper but the editor resigned. Are we supposed to believe that it’s all about science?
Mr. Kloor –
If people like you and Revkin were journalists rather than echo chambers you might dig into the following:
1) Why did Wagner send Trenberth a letter of apology? What is their relationship? Any conflicts of interest?
2) Why did Trenberth co-author his opinion piece with John Abraham? Who is Abraham and what does he know about climate sensitivity?
30 How did Dessler’s paper get published in world record time? Is it possible to do a thorough peer review in a couple of weeks?
I’ll wait with bated breath.
Sashka,
I found Emanuel’s comments striking, esp because they are not in alignment with the criticism of the Spencer paper at Real Climate. He was spot on about the disconnect between the PR release (and what was reported in the press) and what was said in the paper.
As for the actual resignation, I thought Wagner was trying to make a statement with his action, since it seemed unnecessary.
Tom C,
Your third question strikes me as the most worthwhile to follow up on. Maybe some of the other echo chambers will look into it? One never knows. 🙂
I thought Andy’s piece was good. This is a case of science, fairly understated in its conclusions- being blown out of all proportion by basically everyone. On one hand, you have Spencer’s paper, supposedly single handedly destroying climate science. Then Dessler comes along in order to save climate science with his paper. If Dessler 2010 is anything to go by, then it seems like this is all going to be fairly ho-hum.
And Wagner… well he’s certainly appropriately named, isn’t he?
Mr. Kloor –
In light of the climategate revelations of scientists pressuring journal editors to do their bidding you don’t think it interesting to investigate the Trenberth – Wagner relationship. Nothing to see here, move on.
Abraham – a mechnical engineer from a podunk private college who has never been involved in climate scinece in any way – is authoring magesterial opinions regarding what is and what isn’t climate science. I’d like to know his role here. No interest to you, though.
I think there should be a poll to see when a response to Dessler from Spencer will finally make it through peer review. I’ll put myself down for about two years.
A heads up that “record” review time claims are incorrect.
“Maybe some of the other echo chambers will look into it? One never knows. 🙂 ”
I did as Lazar points out. What’s funny is how ridiculously easy it was.
While you guys at buying whatever the echo chamber sells you, here’s a few more papers to look into:
“Possible climate-related signals in high-resolution topography of lobate debris aprons in Tempe Terra, Mars” 18 days
“Friction velocity dependence of clay-rich fault material along a megasplay fault in the Nankai subduction zone at intermediate to high velocities” 16 days