The opening sentence in a BBC News article titled, “Journal Editor Resigns over ‘Problematic’ Climate Paper” reads, ”The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published.” (http://bbc.in/oQKKiW)
The title is absolutely correct, the opening sentence is absolutely deceptive.
American climatological scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell reported in the journal Remote Sensing that climate computer models exaggerated global warming projections of temperature increase.
In other words, just as with the 2009-2010 International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, scandals when massive fudging was discovered at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, the warmist clan rigged their computers to make it seem the planet was cooking. And, just as with the IPCC scandals, certain climatologists are closing ranks to preserve their reputations–and wallets.
See ”Climategate,” http://bit.ly/qeQFUp.
Not surprisingly, the report was applauded and endorsed by so-called “global warming deniers” who had found kindred spirits in Spencer and Braswell’s reinforcement of the truth.
Equally unsurprising, so-called “mainstream” scientists whose bread is buttered with the climate change sham attacked the report as if they had, once again, been exposed as liars–which they had been. They couldn’t very well tolerate having their sham, once again, disproven by their fellow scientists and the very science they claim as their own, now could they?
Remote Sensing editor Wolfgang Wagner submitted his resignation letter as a consequence of the whole brouhaha saying, in part, the Spencer-Braswell paper should not have been published because of a failure of his journal ”to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review [and] to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims.”
Wagner concluded his resignation missive by writing, ”The paper by Spencer and Braswell . . . is most likely problematic in both aspects.”
What balderdash and slanderous gibberish! “Most likely problematic” is tantamount to saying, I think the paper may be wrong, but who really knows? Dr. Wagner owes Messrs. Spencer and Braswell a profuse apology for capitulating to the warmist lobby.
Feel free to read their highly offensive 5 page study here: http://bit.ly/oz0hYA
Not incidentally, Roy W. Spencer, PhD is a highly-regarded and highly-ethical climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville who served as senior scientist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. He and his colleague at the Earth System Science Center in Huntsville, William D. Braswell, had previously thrown cold water on global warming, formerly known as global cooling before warmists checked their thermometers.
Both Spencer and Braswell were slandered by Wagner and his cohorts for publishing their findings in an “off topic” journal and, as Wagner said, ”for not referencing all the relevant research in their manuscript. The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted.”
Another problem that Wagner fails to point out is that the refutations have been refuted by more reputable scientists who don’t have their grubby hands out for grants and other remunerations from federal agencies and from the United Nations which also have vested interests–meaning additional money–in perpetuating the global warming myth.
Our precious planet may indeed be warming, although not for the last decade when it has been cooling. The glaciers may be melting, although polar bears who we were told were drowning as a result are thriving and multiplying with a vengeance. There is no verifiable or statistical proof of anthropomorphic causation for either planetary warming or cooling, although there is an alleged scientific “consensus,” a consensus that excludes differing opinions.
Finally, there is never any explanation by the warmists of why Earth ran hot and cold and had extremes of weather for millions of years prior to the arrival of those mad polluters, mankind, with their automobiles and factories and breathing, none of which were green.
One distinct possibility for “global warming” are the emanations from the mouth of the individual who has profited most from the charade, the carbon-dioxide-spewing Al Gore, and his convenient and highly lucrative lies.