Well that’s what I get for taking a nap today. I had been checking Dr. Trenberth’s manuscript regularly at the AMS website, and of course while napping he (or somebody) changed it. Of course Steve McIntyre caught it and points out the changes. Good for him.
For those that wish to examine the original, I saved it here.
And now here’s some of the changes that Steve McIntyre points out:
==============================================================
Steve writes:
This post has obviously been brought to Trenberth and/or AMS’s attention, as they have deleted the original version of Trenberth’s presentation and replaced it with an amended version, without a change notice.
The amended version picks up most of the problems raised in the previous CA post. Here are the points raised in the CA post and Trenberth’s changes:
Trenberth originally stated:
Scientists make mistakes and often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results. They regularly argue with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions. These debates follow the normal procedure of scientific inquiry.
The amended version:
Hasselmann (2010) further notes that scientists make mistakes and often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results. They regularly argue with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions. These debates follow the normal procedure of scientific inquiry.
Trenberth’s originally statement about tactics to use against “deniers”:
It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers. Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.
The amended version:
It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers (Hasselmann 2010). Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.
He fixes things that would likely get him in trouble, but leaves the insults.
Steve writes:
Trenberth did not submit a comment to Climate Audit thanking us for enabling him to mitigate the problem prior to the actual formal presentation of his speech or otherwise thank us at the AMS webpage at which the changes were made.
=================================================================
Are you honest enough to thank a person who helped you, Dr. Trenberth?
Read all about it here over at Climate Audit here
Be sure to thank Steve McIntyre. I’ll lead by saying it first:
Dr, Trenberth owes Mr. McIntyre a debt of gratitude for heading off an embarrassing and potentially troublesome academic inquiry. The very least he could do is leave a comment at Climate Audit.
In my opinion if Dr. Trenbert values the public interpretation of his integrity, and that of the AMS, he should drop the offensive term “deniers” and replace it with the word “skeptics”. It is as easy as doing “search and replace” in Microsoft word. 10 seconds of work:
Dr. Trenberth, please see below how easy it is to do in a word processor.
Since Dr. Trenberth put his own email address out there in his original document made public on the AMS website,
ClimategateThoughts4AMS_v2 (PDF)
*Corresponding author: Kevin E Trenberth, NCAR, PO Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80303.
Email: trenbert@ucar.edu
…and because he is a paid public servant of the United States, I ask that any Americans who are offended at his continued use of this term after issues have been brought to his attention, email him at the address provided, and ask him politely to make this simple change.
IMHO there’s no academic freedom when it comes to name calling. He knows what the right thing to do is, let’s just make sure he listens to himself.
– Anthony Watts
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
[snip – while your comment is perhaps funny to some, we don’t need to contribute to racheting up the rhetoric any further. Let’s give him an an opportunity to respond and then decide – Anthony]
I love it when people call us skeptics. It implies they aren’t skeptical, as scientists should be.
Got this when I asked him to change “deniers” to sceptics:
I will be on travel in Europe until 19 January 2011. [Bern ISSE 9-14; Grenoble ECRA 15-18] I will have only limited access to email. Please contact my admin asst, Lisa Butler (lbutler@ucar.edu) or x 1366for further information or if this involves travel.Your mail regarding “xxx” will be read when I return.RegardsKevin
Can someone contact him and get an explanation? It is the worst for him if he blocks contact and refuses to discus his errors and corrections.
“Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.”
This is an amazing statement to me. If folks like Trenberth have scientific evidence that is “unequivocal”, wouldn’t producing it be obviously the best approach? Isn’t refusal to debate climate scientists and other skeptics, when you have the evidence to back up your claims, the worst possible approach?
ODE TO KEVIN TRENBERTH
Yet another
Onerous climate disagreement
Universal rancor everywhere
As we
Raise our
Environmental concerns
Always and forever like this?
Can’t we get along?
Love one another?
In spite of our differences?
Murder
Ad hominem is
Tasteless,
Evil!
Ah!
Sorrowful day
Sorrowful climate of science
Have we no hope?
Our reserves of integrity
Lessen
Everyday.
Sent. It has and continues to puzzle, that such highly educated people as Dr. Tremberth, behave no better then any “true believer”, here being used in the most unsavory sense of the term.
“Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition.”
Dr. Lindzen
I sent a polite email, noting that it will be included in our National Archives, and requesting I be called a “skeptic”.
Kind of fun.
Oh how I wish I were a gun ammunition salesman – I would become a millionaire supplying all the ammo used in the “shooting one’s foot” syndrome some academic people seem to specialise in.
Janama: Dr Lindzen is doing great work, but I don’t think you can only be skeptical about plausible things.
Tom t;
I’m with Lindzen. He wants to be called a “denier”.
When it comes to changes in temperature, I don’t think anyone is denying or skeptical that it has occurred. That isn’t the issue. The issue is if the change is anything unusual in either rate or magnitude. So far nobody, to my knowledge, has shown that any warming in the 20th century (no statistically significant warming trend seen so far in the 21st century) was outside the norm of natural climate variation or if there is anything we can do about it even if we wanted to.
Dr. Trenberth,
I’ll lay this out for you one more time:
With the world now weighted with general populace and scientists rightfully skeptical of your insistence that mankind has actually warmed this sphere we live on of any meaningful amount, actually if any, and I find them mainly skeptical of just the anthropogenic part of your theory. Most feel the earth has warmed a small amount from some not yet demonstrable reason, many think it is solar related and we just don’t have enough absolute accuracy in instruments to sense just how hot the sun was in the immediate previous decades, just why are you pouncing and picking on the some less than 1% deniers who are such a very tiny component of this debate.
I must be honest, I rarely come across anyone who deniers that man has no effect on this world, including pollution, urban sprawl, plastic, etc, or that we haven’t been a little warmer that usual back in the 1980’s and ‘90’s.
I can only take it that those very few deniers are the people against who you place the thrust in your speech. Shame on you. You should pick on the skeptical group or some one else your own size!
I just can’t believe you are so incredibly dense that you don’t understand this reality.
“It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers (Hasselmann 2010). Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.”
Hey Doc – how about we all play that game, except we don’t pay you to play it anymore? How would that work out for you?
This is really not necessary – just show us your work. It will speak for itself and save you the effort.
We are not deniers, because we know the historical context of that word. We are not skeptics, because we do not merely sit back and ignore the words of the ‘elite’. We are refuters, because we actively seek the truth and are not afraid to proclaim it.
I’ve already declared if a senior scientist uses the word “denier” against me personally and in print/media as a pejorative meant to damage my scientific reputation, I will haul their ass into federal court.
These scientists need to be much more careful to control their vitriolic language and stick to the science lest they be opening up their checkbooks. If a pattern is established, then punitive damages would ensue. The use of “black-lists” and labels by non-governmental groups or blogs such as Joe Romm’s must also be careful to stick to the science otherwise they are going to see the same summons to federal court.
Enough of this shit.
Dilberth.
This really isn’t OT but NoFrakkingconsensus is running a story about a ‘scientist’ that is trying to get the IPCC to declare climate ‘scientists’ to be exempt from FOI requests. He doesn’t identify the ‘scientist’ that is calling for this.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/is-the-ipcc-a-scrutiny-free-zone/
Kevin has certainly demonstrated his skills with cut and paste, so find and replace should not be too much of a stretch. Perhaps there is a problem with his version of Word?
http://i51.tinypic.com/6sb28i.jpg
My apologies to Anthony for the miss use of his artwork 🙂
(ryanm: bonus points for being witty)
AGW is not possible since the most of the humans live in poverty.
So Trenberth’s getting more air miles on another jaunt to Europe. More CO2 needlessly pumped into the atmosphere… Don’t these guys have any conscience?
crosspatch says:
January 16, 2011 at 8:26 pm
When it comes to changes in temperature, I don’t think anyone is denying or skeptical that it has occurred.
You haven’t said ‘warming’ but I think that is your intent.
I made a comment similar to this a year or so ago and was promptly informed that I was wrong. The idea seemed to be that at the end of the last glacial stage the “global temperature” rose rapidly and since than, by hiccs&ups, it has been in decline. Further, with the understanding that CO2 concentration lags temperature, that too was declining, toward a level that would have been troubling for plants. Thus, the use of fossil fuels may be preventing a catastrophe on Earth for plants and animals.
To get back on topic: I would say that the comments on CA and WUWT and maybe some others are – Are you ready? – peer review.
I do not wish to disparage Steve McIntyre in any way, that is, by implying that Dr. T. is his peer. But it would be impolite, would it not, to say that Dr. T’s paper was reviewed by his . . . . (I’m off to inspect a thesaurus. — Betters?)
What I find fascinating about this is the sheer power of the blogosphere.
And how little the establishment. scientific, political and to a lesser extent commercial nexus, understands how that might is changing the world.
A self appointed grandee of the climate science establishment, indeed a doyen of it, is forced within a day or two to drastically modify his great speech with its grandoise ideas by a handful of bloggers and their websites.
Unthinkable even a a year or two ago when he could have relied upon the MSM to laud him to the skies for his wondrous insights.
Truly the world is changing, and faster I suspect than any of us here could have imagined.
Kindest Regards
“In my opinion if Dr. Trenberth values the public interpretation of his integrity, and that of the AMS, he should drop the offensive term “deniers” and replace it with the word “skeptics”. It is as easy as doing “search and replace” in Microsoft word.”
I don’t really think he cares. Being a climate science ruling class elitist entitles you to denigrate your opponents with impunity.
Since we know a large portion of the AMS membership are
deni..skeptics (you know, all those frontline meteorologists who have to be “reeducated”), I wonder how receptive his audience at the AMS conference will ultimately be…someone needs to get a camera in there to record his speech and post it to YouTube![ryanm: i’ll be there and sitting right in front/center, tho i am certain ams will have a video feed, webex presentation]