Editor of Remote Sensing journal resigns citing review mistakes on climate model paper

Editor of Remote Sensing journal resigns citing review mistakes on climate model paper
Image: Wikipedia

(PhysOrg.com) -- Wolfgang Wagner, editor of the journal Remote Sensing, has resigned from his post after an internal review revealed that a paper published in his journal by climatic scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell had not been properly reviewed before publishing. Subsequently, he says a paper that was fundamentally flawed was allowed to be printed, damaging the integrity of the journal, and thus the only right thing for him to do was resign.

In addition to submitting his resignation, Wagner posted a final editorial in the and in it not only accepted full blame for publishing the and apologized for the , but took the opportunity to take some shots at the media for what he says were overinflated headlines regarding the claims made by the authors in the paper. He was referring to the headlines of such mainstream media as Forbes, Fox News and others who chose to use the paper and it’s finding as a means for furthering their own interests at the expense of accurate science.

The paper caused an uproar in the scientific community when printed in July due to its assertions that computer models that predict the amount of global warming that will occur in the future are flawed and thus temperatures won’t increase as much as others have suggested.

It should be noted that Wagner is not suggesting that opposing views about climate change and it’s causes should not be allowed in respected journals, instead he is saying that mistakes were made in the review process (by biased reviewers) for this particular paper leading to a paper being published in his journal that ignored other contradictory views: a not very scientific way to do things. Thus, he resigned because he felt he had failed in his duties as editor in chief, not because of his (or anyone else’s) opinions on climate change or because of pressure by those at the journal.

In an interesting turn of events, the , some of which Wagner chided for using the paper to serve their own needs regarding their view on predictions of global warming, now seem to be doing the same to undermine the other side’s view, turning Wagner’s resignation into a sort of vindication; something Wagner, were he still with the journal, most certainly would decry as well.

Explore further

A re-review of peer review: Leading journal looks to end the 'review nightmare'

© 2011 PhysOrg.com

Citation: Editor of Remote Sensing journal resigns citing review mistakes on climate model paper (2011, September 5) retrieved 19 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2011-09-editor-remote-journal-resigns-citing.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 05, 2011
Change Is In The Air!

NASA videos of the Sun - from its quietest period in years to the activity marking the beginning of solar cycle 24


Will provide observations needed to determine the validity of:

a.) The Standard Solar Model (SSM) of Sun
b.) Model of CO2 Global Warming (AGW)

Many fields of science astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, nuclear, particle, planetary and solar sciences have been seriously compromised [1] since it was decided on 1971 [2] that Earths heat source is a steady H-fusion reactor (SSM model) that cannot cause climate change (AGW model).

1. Neutron Repulsion, The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011)

2. Deep Roots of Climategate (2011)

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

Sep 05, 2011
Sounds like he was really forced out by the publicly funded climate scientologists who have packed the list of acceptable climate literature reviewers w/ like minded public funded parasites.

NOTE: Wagner was part of the process for picking the 3 neutral reviewers. When they didn't return the results he wanted they became 3 more enemies of Climate Scientology and he the victim of his apparent neutrality.

Sep 05, 2011

The warmists can take on one puny Editor , but can they take on _real_ scientists @ CERN ? The problem for them is no amount of lying can change the facts - that AGW is in insignificant factor in global climate change.

Sep 05, 2011
I'm afraid that we must simply throw more editors into the volcano until the climate gods are appeased...Who wants to go next?

Sep 05, 2011

The warmists can take on one puny Editor , but can they take on _real_ scientists @ CERN ?

The problem for them is no amount of lying can change the facts - that AGW is an insignificant factor in global climate change.

You are right. Big Brother and his allies absolutely fear experimental observation!

They know that ultimately, "Truth is victorious, never untruth" [ Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6]

The SSM model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun, the AGW model of global climate warming, and the careers of many world leaders are gone if NASA releases actual video recordings of the Sun - from its quietest period in years to the activity marking the beginning of solar cycle 24:


With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Sep 05, 2011
Herr Wolfgang Wagner had a problem, maybe it was a language issue. He did not realise that 'Peer review' means 'Pal's Review'. Approval by the 'Ali Baba and the 40 thieves' cabal required!

I still find it amazing that the AGW cabal and the Ali Baba gang comprise of the same size.

Sep 05, 2011
Wagner had a problem with the paper only after the Hokey Team put the screws to him. He failed in achieving what they demanded, retraction by RS, so he had to choose: day job at Vienna Uof Tech & the approval of the Team, or RS and scientific probity.

He went with the money (choice #1).
His resignation letter is a paragon of irrationality. But it C'd his A.

Sep 05, 2011
"There is an opinion article at Daily Climate that perpetuates serious misunderstandings regarding the research of Roy Spencer and John Christy. It also is an inappropriate (and unwarranted) person attack on their professional integrity. Since I have first hand information on this issue, I am using my weblog to document the lack of professional decorum by Keven Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick. "
Part of the abstract:

"It is concluded that
atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due
primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in
satellite radiative budget observations"
"This research was sponsored by DOE contract
DE-SC0005330 and NOAA contract NA09NES4400017."

Sep 05, 2011
If Trenberth, Abraham and Gleick wanted to protect the integrity of climate science, they would ask why NASA hid isotopes data from the 1995 Galileo probe of Jupiter, belatedly released in a recorded press conference in 1998 [1], that confirmed 1975-1983 reports [2-5]: The Sun is NOT the steady heat source AGW proponents assumed.

1. www.youtube.com/w...IFmZpFco

2. "Elemental and isotopic inhomogeneities in noble gases: The case for local synthesis of the chemical elements", Trans MO Acad Sci 9, 104-122 (1975)

3. "Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements, and the solar neutrino puzzle", Science 195, 208-209 (1977)


4."Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in Allende retain record of nucleosynthesis",
Nature 277, 615-620 (1979)


5. "Solar abundances of the elements", Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)


Sep 06, 2011
Wow, as a non-climate scientist - I have to say that when two sides of an issue of which both have serious funding and their respective funding is threatened, the thin veil of professionalism evaporates on both sides - quicker than spit on molten lava.

Sep 06, 2011
Climate change has occurred, and will continue to occur, because that is the natural direction of the forces that control this area - the Sun, the Earth, and our very lives [0-9].

It is time to face reality and abandon unscientific dogma that divides us ! [Obama yields on smog rule in face of GOP demands]


1. www.omatumr.com/a...enon.pdf
2. www.omatumr.com/a...nces.pdf
3. www.omatumr.com/lpsc.prn.pdf
4. www.omatumr.com/a...tnuc.pdf
5. www.springerlink....6685079/
6. http://arxiv.org/.../0501441
7. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
8. http://journalofc...102.html
9. http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1
0. http://dl.dropbox...5079.pdf

Even CERN scientists now accept that cosmic rays (probably from the pulsar at the solar core) produce ionization that causes nucleation of water droplets and formation of clouds.

Sep 06, 2011
just wantd to clarify, i accidently gave oliver a 2 above. that was a mistake, i dont automatically give him 1's but 99% of his posts he earns them. its unreal how mentally disturbed he is. Oliver, admit that when the nasa data doesnt confirm your theory you'll just say its a conspiracy and nasa hid data, so why not just start claiming it now, at least that way you wont look quite as pathetic.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more