He threw the rattle out the pram!

Some minor editor has resigned. because a sceptic paper was printed in “his” journal. It is a classic and very humorous. This is how his argument goes:

• (I believe/have to say) paper should not be published
• I am therefore resigning
• I protest at the way people (56,000) read this paper and journalist wrote about it … in a journalistic way
• “the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible.”

{squeeling brakes sound} Hang on a gone darn moment!!
Here is a report of a paper from Scientific American  (2001):
 

More proof of warming

The researchers looked at the infrared spectrum of long-wave radiation from a region over the Pacific Ocean, as well as from the entire globe. … the team looked only at readings from the same three-month period of the year (April to June) and adjusted them to eliminate the effects of cloud cover.

This is essentially the same method of Spencer looking at IR. But this time they are comparing a satellite in orbit around 1970 with a completely different one, in a different orbit with different instrumentation and wow! the readings were different!!!! Or as the BiasedBroadcastingCompany  16 March, 2001, 14:17 GMT put it:

A team of UK-based scientists have published evidence which they say proves unequivocally that global warming is real.
Comparing data obtained from two satellites which orbited the Earth 27 years apart, they found that significantly less radiation is now escaping into space than was previously the case.

Now, this editor said: “I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions”. So, just what is taking highly dubious data from a small area of the globe over a very short period using two different instruments, in two different orbits, finding a difference and then concluding it is unequivocal, if it is not “much exaggerat(ing) the paper’s conclusions”.
Yet again we have the dirty dealing double standards of the warmist. 11 years of data is results in: “such a simple conclusion simply cannot be drawn considering the complexity of the involved models and satellite measurements.”, but 11 months of data from two completely different satellites is “unequivocal evidence”.
Did any climate “scientist” call on the editor who printed that paper to resign? Did any of them criticise the BBC?

Of course, reading between the lines it is pretty obvious what happened. The editor is a warmist, he didn’t like the fact that he had been forced to print a seminal work exposing the fraud of the scaled up CO2 models which are proven false by Spencer and by the simple fact it hasn’t warmed as they predict. And like all people deluded by their own importance he thought that the mere threat of resigning would cause people to come grovelling to him begging for him to stay so that he could force them to tow the warmist line. And when they just said: “fine go”, he threw the rattle out the pram and went home crying to mummy.