Exactly how was the Spencer and Braswell paper fraudulent?<quoted text>
A flawed paper getting through is not the same as a denier paper getting rejected because it is obviously fraudulent or unsupportable. People make mistakes and the fact that the paper was withdrawn shows that science works. If there was evidence of fraudulent behavior on the part of a reviewer, then it may be that he or she should be removed from list.
Wagner's reason for resigning:
"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published. After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing."
Obviously, the Australian hockey stick paper did not go through a rigorous peer review. The peer review did not identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. The errors were found in internet discussion forums. Exactly the same circumstances, yet the editor for the Spencer paper resigns and the editor for the Gergis paper does not.