Saturday, September 03, 2011

- Bishop Hill blog - Critiques and responses
Remote Sensing has now made it clear that they will not be retracting the paper.

It seems clear from Wagner's resignation letter that his understanding of the alleged flaws in Spencer's paper came from blog posts like the one at RC; there is, as yet, no formal critique of the paper in the literature. It therefore seems fairly clear that Wagner's resignation was prompted by blog posts and perhaps word of mouth from Spencer's rivals. If so, this is extraordinary and quite an indictment of climate science.

Apparently there is going to be a formal critique of the paper, which will be published in GRL in the near future. This will be interesting for sure, but one has to wonder why a critique of a paper in Remote Sensing would be published in GRL; of course the suspicion will be that the authors will expect an easy ride from the editors there. We know that prominent climatologists have expressed their satisfaction with the "plugging" of the "leaks" that had been seen at that journal in the past. Remote Sensing, on the other hand, is presumably much more of an unknown quantity to them.
If you have never written a letter to the paper before – now is the time to do it! | ScottishSceptic
ABOVE ALL – SEND IT IN!!

Even if you don’t get published, the editor will see that they have a number of letters on the subject with a certain view and will tend to include one of those letters.
- Bishop Hill blog - Brooke on the Stirling FOI case
Heather Brooke in the Guardian writes in support of the position I took on Philip Morris's line on FOI compliance for universities:
The UK's FoI law is meant to be applicant blind. This means anyone can ask a public body for official information and there should be no discrimination based on the identity of the person asking. In the case of scientific research conducted and funded in the public's name, there is a strong argument that the underlying data and methodology should be disclosed. It is precisely this transparency that grants research reports their status as robust investigations.
Good for her.


No comments: