Where to from here for science?

Dr Roy Spenser as he appears on the BBC website in a story concerning the resignation of a Scientific Journal Editor. An Editor who is resigning for an "error of judgement" in publishing a paper by Dr Roy Spenser.

What is wrong with Dr Spenser's paper? It calls into question the IPCC's calculations of the earths "energy budget". If Dr Spenser is correct the IPCC is wildly wrong.

It is an axiom of course that the IPCC is correct and there are many vested interests which depend upon the IPCC being correct. Which is why Dr Spenser needs to be shut down.

And why his papers should not be published.

It amuses me that in captioning his photograph the BBC feels the need to highlight Dr Spenser's religious affiliation - to their target audience this presumably suggests he is a wacko.

This also amuses me

The paper became a cause celebre in "sceptical" circles through its claim that mainstream climate models inflated temperature projections through misunderstanding the role of clouds in the climate system and the rate at which the Earth radiated heat into space.

This meant, it said, that projections of temperature rise made in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports were too high.


Dr Spencer is a committed Christian as well as a professional scientist
The paper, published in July, was swiftly attacked by scientists in the mainstream of climate research.

We get "sceptical" circles for those who agree the paper has something to add to the debate and the mainstream of climate research for those who don't.

Do you think that there is anybody on the BBC payroll who has the mathematical savvy to actually understand this paper and make an informed judgement for themselves?

In truth this is seriously hard stuff put forward by a credentialed scientist which is worthy of attention. If it is wrong, if there are mistakes in the analysis of the data so be it.

Journals publish papers that are in error all the time and people pick up the mistakes and correct them. And that is the way it is supposed to work.

But not in Climate science - this so called scientific discipline is disgraceful. If an article no matter how poor goes along with the party line it is celebrated while any paper that questions the party line and thereby threatens the gravy train is dismissed, the authors smeared and heads roll.

This is not the first instance of this Stalinist behavior by the Climate Science community.