Dear Kev

According to The Daily Climate, both the editor and publisher of Remote Sensing wrote to Kevin Trenberth to apologise for publishing the Spencer and Braswell paper.

I wonder how they phrased their letters.

Suggestions in the comments please.

Comments

[shub]

Spencer contra Wagner

Dear Kevin,

I have failed.
Here is my editor-in-chief head on a platter. Please stick it on a pike at the Climate Village.

Yours,
Wagner

[Shona]

Shall we call this Wagnergate? Or is it just the fat Valkyrie singing?

[Maurizio Morabito]

More Wagnerian fun http://wp.me/p9Tzg-NW

Yes, the guy even marketed Remote Sensing as a "high publicity" journal.

And I've found the soft underbelly of his Institute, the nice sweet spot Dear Kev could have hit in the absence of an apology.

[Alexander K]

Ross, I totally agree. Trenberth is a total embarrassment to any intelligent Kiwi.

[SiliconJon]

Kev, I received the notice today regarding SciVerse Scopus removing our content from their database which would utterly cripple Remote Sensing Journal's relevance. I will issue an apology and resign as editor. Please see that the Scopus action is reversed.

[pesadia]

Is it possible that this whole episode was caused by the 56000 and counting, downloads. Did someone point this out to Kev. Did he panic and decide that he had to do something to counteract the popularity of this paper. His obvious outragious outburst and probably libellous tirade against fellow scientists appear to be the product of unfettered anger.
Just a thought.

[Drcrinum]

O most esteemed Lord Trenberth, prince of NCAR, I humbly beseech thee not to admonish me for my trangressions against the edits of warming. Please do not transmit electronic beams to the gods at NSF requesting that I be banned from sitting at the government grant table of plenty. Forgive me most pious Trenberth. Please grant me a public audience wherein I may grovel at your feet and kiss your glorious AGW ring of power. Speak only the words and I shall set forth a ringing public apology.

[--The Sky is Falling!]

We are not worthy! We are not worthy!

[peter_dtm]

come on; think 'Yes Minister' or UK civil service between the wars.

The resignation letter effectively says :
there is nothing wrong with the science
there is nothing wrong with the people who peer reviewed the paper
there is nothing wrong with the peer review process
The peer review process worked - the paper was corrected
There was no scientific or peer review reason NOT to publish the paper.

However I am being forced to resign because some one thinks that the reviewers failed to apply the Gospel of MMCGW to the review process.

And then his letter of apology is to (in the classic British Civil Service maneuver) the person or organistaion who bought illegal and/or underhand pressure to bear; resulting in the refusal to do something; leaving the victim no alternative but to resign.

The 'apology' would there fore be something along the lines of

Trenberth

I feel I must appologise that no one has as yet figured out just how corrupt your associates have made Climate Science. I sincerly regret having been forced to resign and apologise most profusly for being unable to continue to fight the myriad and diverse hints and threats that were made to me should I fail to totally refute the paper. I further appologise for being unable to publish the utter garbage that I was instructed to publish as a peer reviewed paper under the heading of 'Lies; Deciept and the Corruption of Science' which is where such utter drival truly belongs.

I also appologise that I could not publish the truth behind the whole sordid affair.

I appologise whole heatedly to you that there is no criminal investigation taking place; however; I do hope that this oversight will be rectified in the not to distant future. When it does; you may be assured that I will do everything in my power to ensure that this episode is drawn to the attention of the correct and appropriate authorities.

W.

[hro001]

Considering Travesty Trenberth™'s known facility with "reconstructions" (he has a rather unfortunate habit of failing to notice emails he's received while inventing stuff he hasn't), I think it's important to examine the "full context" of these alleged apologies from Wolf (and his publisher) to Kev. With the assistance of a very capable (but outsourced) E-mail grabber, I herewith produce the "source" of these alleged apologies:

Kev ->Wolf [Aug 5, 2011]

Dear Wolf,

On July 29, I sent you the paper that demolishes that dreadful S&B2011 you published, and the name of 5 referees (Jones, Mann, Osborn, Schmidt & Dessler - who all know what to do with it). Why haven't you published it yet?

Kev

Wolf->Kev [Aug 6, 2011]

Dear Kev,

Sorry Kev, as you know we do have some procedures here at RS; I have assigned it to an editor who will be sending it out for peer review.

Wolf

Kev->Wolf [Aug 10, 2011]

Dear Wolf,

Could you give me an update on the status of the paper? I checked with Jones, Mann, Osborn, Schmidt and Dessler who tell me that they haven't received a request to review it yet. Btw, how many downloads have there been of that TRAVESTY?

Kev

Wolf->Kev [Aug 11, 2011]
cc RS Publisher

Dear Kev,

We're working on it; I'm sure you'll understand that people do take vacations at this time of year. But we have asked the reviewers to fasttrack their responses. I'm cc'ing our publisher - as tracking downloads is his department, not mine.

Wolf

RS Publisher->Kev [Aug 12, 2011]
cc Wolf

Dear Prof. Trenberth,

In response to your recent inquiry, as of today's date, there have been 40,379 downloads of Spencer and Braswell 2011.

RS Publisher

Kev->RS Publisher [Aug 12, 2011]
cc Wolf

This is a TRAVESTY! You must pull the plug on these downloads, immediately.

K.E.T. Distinguished Climate Scientist

RS Publisher->Kev [Aug 13, 2011]
cc Wolf

Dear Prof. Trenberth,

In reply to your request of Aug.12, as you know a cornerstone of our policy and practice at RS is to make freely available all publications of RS. Consequently, I am very sorry, but we cannot comply with your request.

Yours truly,
RS Publisher

RS Editorial Team->Kev [Aug. 20, 2011]
cc Wolf

Dear Prof. Trenberth,

Attached please find the reviewer responses to your recent submission to RS. Would you kindly address their concerns and re-submit your paper.

Yours truly,
RS Editorial Team

Kev->Wolf [Aug. 21, 2011]

Dear Wolf,

You need to explain the rules of the game to your "editorial" team - and please explain WTF is taking so long to stop those downloads of that TRAVESTY. What is the publication date of my paper?

Kev

Wolf->Kev [Aug. 31, 2011]

Dear Kev,

Thanks for taking my phone call on the 21st and for explaining the rules of the game to me. I appreciate the time your friends took to draft the letter of resignation for me. You are quite correct, the future of the planet is at stake. The letter will be published in our next edition [Vol 3, Issue 9, Sept. 2] Feel free to use it whichever way you see fit.

Wolf

Kev->WSJ [Sep. 1, 2011]
cc Abraham, Gleick

Attached please find our OpEd for publication in your Sep. 2 edition.

K.E.T. Distinguished Climate Scientist

WSJ->Kev [Sep. 1, 2011]

Dear Kev,

Your OpEd refers to "letters of apology" from Wolf and RS Publisher. Pls. fwd copies of these for sidebar on your piece.

WSJ

Kev->WSJ [Sep. 1, 2011]
cc Abraham, Gleick

Dear WSJ,

Those letters are confidential and it would be highly unethical of me to fwd them to you without their permission. Time is of the essence. We shall publish elsewhere.

K.E.T. Very Distinguished Climate Scientist