The Science Is Settled: Editor of Journal Which Published AGW-Skeptical Article Resigns In Shame

 

From Ace:

Not that there was anything wrong with the article. It was peer-reviewed, checked, and followed protocols.
Unfortunately, the science it brought light to -- that more heat was being lost from the earth than climate "models" accounted for (thus meaning they are wrong as currently configured) -- harms the cause.
So the "guilty" editor resigned, apparently in protest of his own decision.

Wolfgang Wagner, the editor of new open access science journal Remote Sensing has resigned, re-opening the debate about the politicisation of science publishing. The August edition of Remote Sensing included a peer-reviewed paper by Spencer and Braswell [original PDF/370KB], citing satellite evidence showing that more heat energy is being lost to space than climate models account for.

Resigning is a very unusual step, notes Retraction Watch. The Spencer and Braswell paper has not been retracted, and in his statement [PDF/93KB] Wagner acknowledges protocols were followed. Standard operating procedure would be for critics to examine, and rebut if needed, the science in other journals.
But peer-reviewed publication in a journal has become a powerful propaganda weapon – the lead scientists who submit and review each others' papers are often chapter editors for the IPCC's assessment reports, the "bible" used by politicians to formulate climate policy. Several efforts where editors were pressured to keep dissenting views out of the prestigious journals have been documented.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" vowed Dr Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Jones and Trenberth were both co-ordinating lead authors on the IPCC's Fourth Assessment report, published in 2007.

The science is settled, and here's how they did it: By simply censoring any contradictory science.