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.
The paper at issue, “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance”, was authored by Roy Spencer and William Braswell. It was pretty clear several months ago that Spencer was trying to sneak it through the peer review process, refusing to name the journal that had accepted it so as to head off attempts by outraged climate scientists to have the thing yanked.
Wolfgang Wagner, the editor in question, has behaved honourably, stepping down so as to protect the good name of his journal (Remote Sensing). Mr. Spencer and Mr. Braswell's only accomplishment, other than grabbing a few headlines on Fox news, has been to damage the reputation of that journal. And I say "only" because at this point it is hard to imagine how their own scientific reputations could become more sullied by this incident than they already are.