Stop digging guys.
Course not. Andrew Dessler has a paper in preparation that shows what is incorrect in Spencer's work. While we wait, the flaws in the work are outlined here and here.
The guy who resigned was editor-in-chief of the journal and so an authority in Remote Sensing. A strange choice for such a 'bombshell' paper but yer actual climate science journals wouldn't touch it, presumably the guy was expert enough to approve the paper for publication, but now he has discovered it is 'fundamentally flawed' his expertise is suddenly insufficient? No double standard there then.
Ever heard of hyperbole? Both Jones and the recipient of the mail would have known full well that nobody gets to redefine peer-review, any more than 'over my dead body' is a serious proposition of a duel to the death. But such misapprehensions are a danger inherent in snooping other people's mail .......... Besides both the papers in question were cited and discussed in the IPCC report, and both have since sunk without trace leaving not a ripple in the literature.
does this mean that the process of comment and retraction is dead ?
The guy who resigned was editor-in-chief of the journal and so an authority in Remote Sensing. A strange choice for such a 'bombshell' paper but yer actual climate science journals wouldn't touch it, presumably the guy was expert enough to approve the paper for publication, but now he has discovered it is 'fundamentally flawed' his expertise is suddenly insufficient? No double standard there then.
In 2004, when Phil Jones said 'we will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” - is this what he meant ?
Comment