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

(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 journal and in it not only accepted full blame for publishing the paper and apologized for the mistake, 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 mainstream media, 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.

© 2011 PhysOrg.com