Quote of the Week – it’s a travesty of the blandities

Dr. Kevin Trenberth has another travesty on his hands.  UPDATE: Commenter Lee Harvey has the best point I’ve seen so far.

The next IPCC report will be “blander”; it’s now “harder to gain a consensus”; Climategate “made an immense difference”

From the Brisbane Times: Climate scientist loses faith in the IPCC

AS THE world’s elite global warming experts begin poring over the drafts of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report this week, one leading scientist doesn’t believe the process should be happening at all.

”I think it will be less successful than the last assessment, and I think it will be blander – I’m disappointed in what I’ve seen so far,” said Kevin Trenberth, the head of the climate analysis section at the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research.
…Dozens of Australian scientists are among hundreds of international experts who started reviewing the IPCC’s fifth summary report this week, with the final version to be published next September.

But Professor Trenberth believes too many researchers and too much ”second tier” science are diluting the report’s quality, and that science has jumped far ahead of the lumbering process. ”There are more people, it’s more diffuse, it’s harder to gain a consensus – quite frankly I find the whole process very depressing,” he said. ”The science is solid, but with a larger group it’s harder to reach a consensus, and updates every six years are just too slow. After the fifth assessment, we should push on with a different format.”

Professor Trenberth is a bruised survivor of the so-called ”climategate” scandal, which involved the theft and publication of thousands of emails that had been sent between some of the world’s most influential climate researchers.

Professor Trenberth believes it had a big impact on public debates about climate science. ”It made an immense difference – the level of vitriol and hate we received,” he said. ”Not only do we have waves of attacks when we publish and it ends up on a denialist website, but it has affected politicians.”

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently had its climate change-related research budget slashed by a fifth, affecting Professor Trenberth’s peers, as a result of online campaigns against climate scientists, he said. He believes uncertainties in climate change models scientists rely upon is being falsely inflated as a general uncertainty about the status of climate science.

h/t to Tom Nelson

UPDATE: Lee Harvey says in comments:

No Kevin, the problem isn’t that the Denialists are aligned against you.

The problem is that reality is aligned against you.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Quote of the Week and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to Quote of the Week – it’s a travesty of the blandities

  1. Algebra says:

    Darn those evil denialist websites
    /sarc

  2. DCrawford says:

    “He believes uncertainties in climate change models scientists rely upon is being falsely inflated as a general uncertainty about the status of climate science.”

    What a disconnect.

  3. DocWat says:

    Geeeese… What a heart breaker.

  4. Alan the Brit says:

    Yeah, that’s the trouble when there are more of you making the decisions, everybody wants a piece of the action, & the more there are the less they are likely to be bullied & cajoled into going along with the plotline! Is this what he means? Ah diddums, what a shame, couldn’t have happened to a nicer fella! Could this really be the end of the whole shebang? Or are “they” seeking an alternative system so that they can proppagate scare stories with impunity?

  5. Bill says:

    That is so sad. I feel for him. I’ll bet all those scientists publishing in 2nd tier journals know how to fit a trend line to data though.

    I have never seen Trenberth or anyone else deny that this is true about him not knowing Excel. Sad thing is, he was in his office, everyone had gone home and not only could he not do it in Excel, he apparently did not have any other program (or calculator) that he could use to do it. Now that I use a Mac, I only have about 4 programs I could use but I could find dozens online and learn to use them in 5 minutes. On my older PC, I had at least 5 or 6 programs I could use to fit a trend line. Now on a calculator I would be lost as I have never bought a programmable one, preferring the $10 scientific calculators myself.

  6. Steve Divine says:

    Blander…? Suppose he means more bland. I do, however, like the sound of the word blander – reminds me of balderdash. Which seems an appropriate term to associate with an IPCC report.

  7. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    Gee, Kevin, it influenced politicians? What, does that mean your influence over the same is waning? Or, better yet, exposed for all to see? Hypocrite.

  8. gator69 says:

    Yes dictators make science so much more efficient, just ask the Jews.

  9. Sean says:

    “The next IPCC report will be blander; it’s now harder to gain a consensus”

    Oh no, gasp, what a travesty!

  10. Latimer Alder says:

    Poor Kev. It s a tough life being a climateer :-(

    ROFLMAO

    Climateer – from privateer. = posh word for pirate. An untrustworthy fellow.

  11. eqibno says:

    The KT boundary…..definition of an alarmist.
    Perhaps we could paraphrase another infamous quote and say that Dr. Trenberth just “played a blander”? ;-)

  12. Stephen Wilde says:

    With an attitude like that is he entitled to claim to be a scientist at all ?

  13. starzmom says:

    When I saw “blander” the word that came to my mind was “blather”.

  14. Paul Matthews says:

    The backstory is of course that Trenberth and Jones were coordinating lead authors on the IPCC AR4 report, 2007, writing Chapter 3 on Observations, full of misleading and exaggerated claims, with cherrypicked literature to support their activism (“redefining the peer-reviewed literature”).

    For the new IPCC AR5 currently in preparation, Jones and Trenberth have been kicked out, hence his sour grapes. It remains to be seen whether their replacements will be any better.

  15. Again, as long as the earths remains, our climate, seasons & day & night will never cease((Gen.(Bere-shith) 8:22! I believe truth & not MARXIST MANDATED MANIFESTO LIES! Just saying what’s
    written both in the Hebrew inspired Scriptures & marxist manifesto!

  16. Pamela Gray says:

    Oh. Poor babies. Their tight-knit little club house of consenting friends was party crashed.

  17. jb frodsham says:

    That will teach him, I wonder what Chris Landsea makes of all this?

  18. ConfusedPhoton says:

    It is a travesty that his English is so poor – “blander” no such word he means more bland – yeah lets just make up words

    Good to see he is as consistently bad in climate science – lets just make up “missing heat”

  19. LeeHarvey says:

    No Kevin, the problem isn’t that the Denialists are aligned against you.

    The problem is that reality is aligned against you.

  20. Coalsoffire says:

    It is a travesty. First they can’t find the heat, now the team is losing its precious consensus. Bahawwwaa! Long ago they lost the plot.

  21. John Shade says:

    Blander presumably means less extravagant with assertions. I suspect that there are now so many high-calibre shredders of climate-related hyperbole and shoddy science that the cabal in and around the IPCC are now forced to choose their words with more care.

  22. tallbloke says:

    AR5 will be so much blander
    Without all the hype and the intrigue and slander
    But Kevin’s still game
    To shoot the horse with no name
    And fill in the cracks with Tiljander

  23. John W. says:

    In the war between math and “climate science,” my money is on math.

  24. rogerknights says:

    Too bland? No problem! Spice it up with Santer’s Secret Sauce.

  25. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Yeah Kev. Sorry to spoil all your fun and all that. But you’ve all been rumbled.

  26. Dave from the Hot [ Not anymore ] North East of Scotland says:

    Looks like a case of the bland leading the bland.

  27. Kiwi Kev’s IPCC “reality” show is coming to an end. Maybe he could parlay that into a slot on Survivor, which still seems to be going strong.

  28. There, there Kevin. Never mind one day you will wake to reality and all will be clear.

  29. Jeff Alberts says:

    Bill says:
    October 11, 2012 at 6:46 am

    I have never seen Trenberth or anyone else deny that this is true about him not knowing Excel.

    You’re conflating Trenberth with Phil Jones.

  30. SasjaL says:

    Hm! Where did Trenberth got his title?

    Oxford International University? Standford University? A cornflake box?

  31. It’s like a quotation from Scooby Doo: “We would’ve gotten away with it if it hadn’t been for that pesky reality…”

  32. elftone says:

    Blimey, these Climate Scientists™ are an emotional lot, aren’t they? Jones, Trenberth, Mann, Santer… all prone to letting it colour their actions and the way they’re viewed. Nothing wrong with emotion, but the process of science really should be a dispassionate thing.

    I frankly couldn’t give a t*ss if he finds it depressing (that’s his problem), but it’s almost like he – and others – are trying to win arguments by appearing pathetic.

  33. David says:

    The next IPCC report will be “blander”

    Isn’t this kind of like saying “greater than infinity”?

  34. P. Solar says:

    Bill says: ” On my older PC, I had at least 5 or 6 programs I could use to fit a trend line.”

    Half the problem is this naive obsession with fitting so-called “trends”. There is nothing linear about any aspect of climate. A linear model is just about the most inappropriate model to choose for most things in climate science.

    You really are not going to get far if you are trying to do your scientific data processing on Excel. If a scientist can’t use Excel I don’t see that as fault. It might mean he spends his time using more appropriate tools.

    Actually, I think the ‘can’t do it on Excel thing was his co-defendant Phil Jones. If he could not fit a straight line with _anything_ , there’s a problem.

  35. observa says:

    Just think of it as a decline to hide our tricks Kevin.

  36. chuck l says:

    What a hypocritical bloviator Trenbarth is. Almost every week there is a new study that casts even more doubt on the “settled science” of global warming.

  37. Zeke says:

    Perhaps Kevin Trenberth could not get his claims that the ratio of record highs to record low temps is 10:1 in AR5, because of John Christy’s recent testimony before Congress, which showed that record lows exceed record highs.

    But it remains to be seen if AR5 is “blander” or not.

  38. RockyRoad says:

    A blander IPCC report will be less of a blunder.

  39. P. Solar says:

    LeeHarvey says:
    October 11, 2012 at 7:00 am
    “The problem is that reality is aligned against you.”

    That’s a brilliant line.

    It’s really like the whole climate is conspiring against their CO2 hypothesis.

    Trenberth , who is happier to question the reliability of their whole sensor network than to conceive that there may be a fault in their model. His “travesty” remark was off the record, between friends. It has the ring of being genuine.

    It just shows how disconnected from reality this little clique had become.

    We should not underestimate the power of faith !

  40. Gary Pearse says:

    Blander… lets not lose this word, it’s a doozy. It deserves to become a verb and noun, too. e.g. What is he blandering about? How did he cook up all this blander. It could be employed only with post-modern stuff.

  41. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently had its climate change-related research budget slashed by a fifth, affecting Professor Trenberth’s peers, as a result of online campaigns against climate scientists, he said.

    Really? Is this “slashed by a fifth” in real-world terms — meaning this year’s budget spends 20% less dollars than last year’s? Or is this “slashed by a fifth” in Washington big government speak — meaning the actual increase in dollar expenditures is 20% less than the projected increase.

    In real-world terms, your budget is “slashed by a fifth” if you had $10 million last year and this year you only have $8 million. In Washington big government speak, “slashed by a fifth” means you had $10 million last year and only $10.8 million this year, but you were projected to have $11 million.

    But I digress. If the NOAA climate change budget has actually been cut even under President Obama, maybe there is hope. Now if we could just ratched up the “slashed by” ratio to two thirds, or nine tenths …

  42. It is a travesty that his English is so poor – “blander” no such word he means more bland – yeah lets just make up words

    He’s a Kiwi, not a POM, bro.
    They say like they want to hear it, eh?
    :-)

  43. The best bit of the 4th IPCC report was the graph showing the various forcings, and especially the “LOSU” associated with each – the level of scientific understanding, sometimes high and sometimes low. Joking aside, this does deserve credit. Let’s hope that the next report admits that the known unknowns plus the unknown unknowns make the entire industry a waste of time.

  44. Hector Pascal says:

    ”Not only do we have waves of attacks when we publish and it ends up on a denialist website, but it has affected politicians.”

    Politicians are affected by votes. Voters are affected by green politics. It’s called “democracy”. A definition can be found in most dictionaries.

  45. openside50 says:

    what Trenberth means by there being now too many scientists and too much second tier science

    is that he and his like minded little clique are no longer able to have the field to themselves in guiding policy, saying what should and should not be in the report etc

  46. Bob Tisdale says:

    One might think “The Team” won’t be too pleased about the feelings Trenberth has expressed about the upcoming AR5. Mann must be fuming!!! Tee-hee! That’s okay. Mann didn’t understand Trenberth’s travesty email, and he won’t understand this inteview.

  47. Stevec says:

    Whose idea was it to standardize thermometers in the first place?

  48. Bob Tisdale says:

    Many thanks to Tom Nelson and Anthony. This interview was quite revealing.

  49. Kev-in-Uk says:

    good comment from Lee – but in truth it is Trenberth who is against reality (reality just is what it is and takes no sides!)
    as someone else mentioned, KT is definitely no ”scientist” to come out with this kind of BS…

  50. Ray Donahue says:

    From the article and concerning review:

    “……hundreds of international experts…”

    What happened to the “thousands” of scientists?

  51. JJ says:

    “”The science is solid, but with a larger group it’s harder to reach a consensus, …

    OYG.

    You’ve got 97% in the bag, right? Right? That extra 3% is blowing the “consensus”? Really?

    Remember Kev, “consensus” (or lack thereof) is the proof of the solidity (or lack thereof) of the science … right? Right?

    In the annals of blatantly unscientific comments by blatant anti-scientists, that statement ranks right up there with Jones’ “Why should I give you my data” line.

  52. Why not just designate one “scientist” to decide what the consensus will be? Think how much more streamlined that would be. Like Stalin & Lysenko.

  53. Steve Keohane says:

    The truth is (warmer climate) = (blander climate/weather). If the cognitive dissonance of denying that is transitioning from an unconscious to a conscious state, a depression might ensue prior to the conscious realization of being wrong.

  54. Chuck says:

    Why does the report have to reach a consensus? Oh yeah, that’s because the entire reason for the existence of the IPCC is to influence government policy makers, not make an honest assessment of the current state of the science.

    It seems obvious to me now that the warmists continue to use “denialists” to invoke the ire of the skeptics.

  55. son of mulder says:

    “The science is solid, but with a larger group it’s harder to reach a consensus…”

    Sorry Prof Trenberth but if the science is solid then it will be easier to gain a consensus of scientists because if the science is solid then critics won’t be able to identify and expose weaknesses.

  56. Tim Clark says:

    I couldn’t get past “elite”, and “second tier”. I need to use the restroom.

  57. SteveW says:

    In the kingdom of the bland, the one idea man is king.

    (I suspect I may have stolen that from a 20+ year old copy of 200AD)

  58. observa says:

    ”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work,”
    And Kev worries about the next IPCC report being blander?

  59. Sam the First says:

    D Crawford said it for me; he quoted the words below and commented “What a disconnect”:

    “He believes uncertainties in climate change models scientists rely upon is being falsely inflated as a general uncertainty about the status of climate science”

    Can the author not see the implication of these words? Scarcely believable!

  60. Doug Proctor says:

    As a manager of technical projects, I understand KT’s disappointment. After you have talked things out, have given your presentations and thoughts, got general agreement, you want to “get on with it”. You recognize that you can’t get uncertainty lower, you’ve done all you can to get comfort higher (note that uncertainty and comfort are not the same thing), and there is nothing further you can do to determine the outcome other than proceed. And yet the critical authorization doesn’t come. You sit, you stir the pot carefully, but you are at the end of your powers. The decision is not up to you.

    But unlike KT, I understand what the problem is: the uncertainty, both of cost and outcome. You want the comfort level to rise sufficiently such that the downfall is considered survivable (politically as well as economically) while the outcome is considered desirable (in the same two ways), but the uncertainty won’t let that happen. And you can’t do anything about it.

    In geology and geophysics, we identify features we wish to test because (in my case) we think they may hold good oil or gas reserves. But what we mostly do is determine the shape of the feature. It’s prime feature, its hydrocarbon content, is only determinable by drilling. We can shoot more seismic, we can reanalyze the core and chip samples, but whatever we do will only sharpen the outline of what we are looking at. There is no other way outside of Star Trek scanners to determine what we might have until we have it. So it is with the Global Warming narrative.

    We have CO2 rising, we have temperatures rising in fits and starts at the same time, we have a story to put it all together. And we have the problems with the story. Regardless of what we do, we can’t get rid of the problems – the assumptions, the non-supportive observations. Even if the CAGW theories were dead-on, we would still have these problems as no simple story represents the complex world.

    AR5 or AR10, the endpoint was back in AR3 or AR4. The fundamentals were determined, both the positives and the negatives. Nothing done since or now is addressing the weaknesses in either theory or observation. The shape is clear, but the shape of what? The limits to knowledge, as some call it, has been reached. Uncertainty will not be reduced by more discussion, and it would appear that comfort with going forward requires less uncertainty.

    What KT, Hansen, Suzuki and (being generous that he is legitimate) Gore don’t want to admit is that the cost of going carbon-neutral or carbon-free right now is horrendous. It is not just finding alternative energy sources that don’t exist in reasonable amounts or at all in some ways. It is that giving >6 billion people a first world lifestyle as they want with or without eco-green energy will still “destroy” the planet as they see it. In order to “save” the planet, as they wish, anti-carbon tactics must also reduce the demand for energy; an 80% reduction with a 4X demand is still 0.8 of what we are doing today, without taking in other resource depletion issues into account. And 0.8 won’t cut it under their catastrophic viewpoint. There have to be less of us.

    That is the horrendous cost. Not just the non-economic energy alternatives that make the first world step away from their pleasures, and the non-developed world stop in its tracks. But the whole shift in national independence, the pursuit of a world order for resource allocation and use, tied together with a global oversight and compliance of population control. Those are the items in the actual cost. And that cost is what creates the whole discomfort with going forward.

    If global warming were just about reducing our fossil fuel portion of energy use by substituting cost-effective and AVAILABLE technologies, such as solar, wind or fusion, we’d be on the way right now. Tax it, replace it, moving on. But it is not. The CAGW enthusiasts have let the beast out of the bag in their guilt-ridden, Garden-of-Eden angst rhetoric. Responding to global warming the way they propose changes civilization, not just Civics.

    Which is good reason for non-comfort.

    KT: here’s the bit. Show CAGW is happening. Not in 2100 or 3000, but now. Don’t say the seas will rise rapidly before 2060. Show that it was rising at 3.4 mm/yr (even that is questionable, KT, but let’s let that one pass), and now it is rising at 4.0 mm/yr (and not just on Tuesday, dude). Show the mid-tropospheric hot spot with normal data, not with a tortured, selected dataset that eliminates comparison with historical data (and weather balloons). Show that normal salty seawater pHs of 8.0 somewhere in the world have killed off all its wet sea life. Stop conjecturizing and start pointing so that nobody who can tell black from white can disagree. Do that and I guarantee that the self-interest of world’s leaders and voters will work in your favour.

    Or accept the fundamental weakness of your honourable position, go home and take a Valium. Time will out, as they say. If what you say is true, then we will know soon enough. And in the meantime we can end this back-and-forth bickering while you continue to publish papers on the injustice of history. Just do it more quietly, if you please.

  61. ilma630 says:

    Kevin, Has no one told you yet that the job of a scientist is to discover and report the FACTS, not to confirm a political ideology, and that FACTS do not need a consensus.

    I can understand it’s hard, seeing the politicians once eating out of your hand like you were a god (albeit with a little g) now turning their backs on you. I suppose you are puzzled as to why, because after all, you were feeding them with what they wanted to hear. Let me tell you, it’s called an intelligent and increasingly enlightened joe public. We are not the dumb fodder you assumed us to be, but are an awaking giant that does not want to be foistered with pitifully inadequate hypothesis, hugely expensive bird chomping prayer wheels that don’t work, hopelessly inefficient light batteries and child starver crops.

    In all your mind processes that tried to shove us down the road of utter ruin, you omitted one gigantic factor – human nature! It is our nature to be sceptic, to ask questions, to not accept the words of self-proclaimed ‘experts’, but to seek reason, to apply the ‘laugh test’ (h/t Willis E), to use that most ancient of responses – common sense.

    But there’s one incarnation of human nature your response to the AR5 draft has clearly demonstrated, utter childishness! You cry “it’s not fair”, and “I want it my way”. Sorry old chum, not this time, and NEVER AGAIN!

    Please turn off the lights when you leave with your one-way ticket to nowhere. Thank you.

    p.s. Can you take a few of your chums with you when you go. You know, Al G, Michael M, Philip J, Bill McK, Joolia, Tim F, Nicholas S, EU, UN, etc. etc.

  62. geronimo says:

    It won’t be “blander” once the Team get to putting together the final report.

  63. KnR says:

    ‘But Professor Trenberth believes too many researchers and too much ”second tier” science are diluting the report’s quality,’
    So the IPCC have improved their standards from third tier or no tier science that made up much of the last report . Overall this is one long moan that its not has easy as it was for ‘the Team ‘ to control the report contents and some people ‘ Tenberth’ no longer have the staring role they think their entitled too.

  64. DesertYote says:

    “… climategate survivor…” ??? I would not call someone on activist media life support, a survivor.

  65. “The science is solid” Really? CAGW espousers don’t act like it is.

    Why are they keeping the solid science under wraps? If they have the science to back up their speculation and opinion, why are they engaging in a propaganda campaign that would make Saul Alinksy proud? Why the name-calling, personally offensive remarks, exaggeration, misrepresentation and obfuscation? Why the deceptive charts? Just let us see this “solid science.”

  66. theduke says:

    Translation: the vaunted “consensus” is breaking apart. And it’s breaking apart because the Climategate emails showed a process rife with confirmation bias.

  67. viejecita says:

    These days I am reading the science fiction novels of “the Demon Princes” series by Jack Vance.
    The most hated and despised organization in those novels is the IPCC ( it officially stands for something else , some kind of private police ) , and the agents who work for it are called “weasels”, and universally despised. ( There are De-Weaseling forces everywhere in the Beyond, to protect the people from them ).
    Could Jack Vance have been thinking of “our” IPCC when he named his ? It would not surprise me.

  68. Chris Mortimer says:

    B-e-a-utifully put Mr Proctor – I was compelled to read your comment twice and ended up smiling after both

  69. In order to have a more solid consensus that matches the solid science, why doesn’t the IPCC simply restrict its membership to only those who adhere to its core consensus points?

  70. rogerknights says:

    The science is solid sullied.

  71. beesaman says:

    Is this a case of the gravy train losing its spice…

  72. John Whitman says:

    Trenberth said,

    “After the fifth assessment, we should push on with a different format.”

    – – – – – –

    No.

    With respect to the future of the current UN IPCC, my recommendation is to mitigate against any undue influence by Trenberth’s ‘we’ on the course of climate science’s leadership processes. Intellectual integrity expectations should be recalibtrated upward from the unacceptably low levels held by Trenberth’s ‘we’ as documented in CG1 & CG2.

    I recommend also to disband the IPCC. I think that the UN should not be involved in assessment of climate science. Just let the science community self-enforce its process of evaluating climate science but I think the science community should first seek to achieve total transparency and openness ‘in process’ when use of public funds are involved in any part of the research and assessment processes. My view is that the climate science community is currently deficient in transparency and openness of publicly funded research & assessment.

    John

  73. Neo says:

    There are no facts, only interpretations. ~Friedrich Nietzsche

  74. The other Phil says:

    I think we just got a sneak preview that AR5 will be doing some back-pedaling, and they are test-driving excuses.

  75. John F. Hultquist says:

    Brent Hargreaves says:
    October 11, 2012 at 7:48 am
    “the known unknowns plus the unknown unknowns

    Although gone from the public stage, Rumsfeld was not bland!
    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/donaldrums148142.html

  76. leftinbrooklyn says:

    Neo says:
    October 11, 2012 at 8:51 am
    There are no facts, only interpretations. ~Friedrich Nietzsche

    Only until Reality rears it’s beautiful head…

  77. Reed Coray says:

    In the past, I’ve had to clean my computer screen because someone on this blog made a particularly witty comment. However, today is the first time I’ve had to clean my screen because of uncontrollable tearing. Kevin’s plight is just too much to take (sob).

    Kevin’s admission that climategate made a difference just demonstrates what a keen mind he has. However, I’d like to ask Kevin the following question: “Was it the fact that the climategate emails were made public or the content of the climategate emails that had the (sob) negative effects?” Maybe, just maybe, Kevin can grasp the obvious truth that all “negative” effects (at least negative in Kevin’s keen mind) of climategate were the direct responsibility of “the climategate team’s behavior”–kind of like “the team” shot itself in its collective foot.

  78. “… with a larger group it’s harder to reach a consensus …”

    Why oh why did they not pick more people from the 97% and fewer from the 3%?!?

  79. GHowe says:

    Are blonders blander?

  80. rogerknights says:

    Wasn’t there a statement in one of the climategate e-mails from some one-time pooh-bah in the IPCC that future AR work wouldn’t have much payoff? If anyone knows what I’m referring to, please put it on the record.

  81. Jack McNeil says:

    Dear WUWT – please jump on this story from the AP. “The increase in Antarctic ice is due to AGW.”HELP!
    11:40AM EST October 11. 2012 – WASHINGTON (AP) — The ice goes on seemingly forever in a white pancake-flat landscape, stretching farther than ever before. And yet in this confounding region of the world, that spreading ice may be a cockeyed signal of man-made climate change, scientists say.

    This is Antarctica, the polar opposite of the Arctic.

    While the North Pole has been losing sea ice over the years, the water nearest the South Pole has been gaining it. Antarctic sea ice hit a record 7.51 million square miles in September. That happened just days after reports of the biggest loss of Arctic sea ice on record.

    Climate change skeptics have seized on the Antarctic ice to argue that the globe isn’t warming and that scientists are ignoring the southern continent because it’s not convenient. But scientists say the skeptics are misinterpreting what’s happening and why.

    Shifts in wind patterns and the giant ozone hole over the Antarctic this time of year – both related to human activity – are probably behind the increase in ice, experts say. This subtle growth in winter sea ice since scientists began measuring it in 1979 was initially surprising, they say, but makes sense the more it is studied.

    “A warming world can have complex and sometimes surprising consequences,” researcher Ted Maksym said this week from an Australian research vessel surrounded by Antarctic sea ice. He is with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

  82. davidmhoffer says:

    There were several “coffee meet screen” moments in this thread, too many to quote! Thanks for brightening my day!

    As for Trenberth, I still have the same question I’ve always had.

    Which would be the greater travesty? Finding out you were wrong about the missing heat which would be a travesty for YOU or finding out that you were right which would be a travesty for billions?

  83. Dave in Canmore says:

    SteveW says:
    October 11, 2012 at 8:09 am
    In the kingdom of the bland, the one idea man is king.

    (I suspect I may have stolen that from a 20+ year old copy of 200AD)

  84. Fred says:

    Kevin’s computer models say Global Warming is happening.

    Kevin’s data says the atmosphere is not warming.

    Gradually, eventually Kevin’s computer models will yield to the dictates of reality.

    Even on Planet Trenberth.

    Even if it displeases Gaia.

  85. Marcoinpanama says:

    Once again Mr. Proctor – very well done indeed. One of the most concise and pointed critiques of CAGW that I have seen anywhere. Please forgive me if I send it along to various of my green friends (and who knows, maybe some politicians too).

    I’m rather perversely fond of engaging a group of CAGW believers at parties and asking them if the real problem isn’t just overpopulation, to which they uncritically agree. Then I propose that the answer to both problems is just a few hundred nuclear air-bursts over China and India, which would instantly reduce both their use of carbon fuels and population, while releasing a fund of beneficial aerosols, proven by the climate scientists to be only moderating factor against CO2.

    At which point, my audience backs away a few feet, wondering when the music will start, and I put it to them, “We’ll, how exactly would you solve the problem?” Sensing their discomfort, my wife takes me by the arm and leads me to the wonderful goose-liver pâté…

  86. S Basinger says:

    The travesties AR-cumulate.

  87. JC says:

    One wonders what Trenberth means by “successful”. I will venture a guess that he means successful in persuading people to believe something, or in moving governments to take action.

    But we’re told the IPCC is a scientific endeavour.

  88. JC says:

    ‘”Second tier” science’, Kevin? You mean like the kind done by WWF or Greenpeace, and published in AR4?

    And if the views of all the scientists who matter are as homogeneous as you’ve been claiming for so long, why would having more people involved make it harder to arrive at a consensus? I thought they all pretty much agreed on all of it?

    Boy, one could go on all day about a few paragraphs …

  89. Chris Edwards says:

    Maybe this Kevin aspires to be second tier? him and his fellow travellers have perpetrated such a huge and damaging scam they deserve a banishment from the field and public purse of science. In the 1960s I remember reading in school books about the Vikings and their loss of Greenland to glaciers, printed books are great for being hard to edit or corrupt, hence the giant book burning festivals in europe in the last century. Also Ive seen the remains of roman vineyards in north England, so I was taught that it was well warmer back then and well cooler until the late 1800s.
    So this soul and his gang mates want me to deny what Ive seen and believe his new faith? And no doubt they will get round to demanding our first born ? if all he gets is some hostility then he will have been very lucky indeed.

  90. pat says:

    folks, i can’t speak for the US, but “bland, blander, blandest” is how it goes in the rest of the english-speaking world.

    bland adj. bland·er, bland·est
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blandest

  91. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    Gary Pearse says:
    October 11, 2012 at 7:46 am
    Blander… lets not lose this word, it’s a doozy. It deserves to become a verb and noun, too. e.g. What is he blandering about? How did he cook up all this blander. It could be employed only with post-modern stuff.

    In reference to Kevin’s co-conflator at UEA, would that become “philblandering’?

  92. Paul Jackson says:

    The semantics of the Doctor once again demonstrate that the position of CAGW is more important to him than the science.

  93. Gunga Din says:

    starzmom says:
    October 11, 2012 at 6:54 am
    When I saw “blander” the word that came to my mind was “blather”.
    ==================================================================
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blather
    1blath·er intransitive verb \ˈbla-thər\
    blath·ered blath·er·ing \-th(ə-)riŋ\
    Definition of BLATHER
    : to talk foolishly at length —often used with on
    — blath·er·er \-thər-ər\ noun
    Origin of BLATHER
    Old Norse blathra; akin to Middle High German blōdern to chatter
    First Known Use: 1524
    Rhymes with BLATHER
    Cather, gather, lather, rather, slather
    2blathernoun
    Definition of BLATHER
    1: voluble nonsensical or inconsequential talk or writing
    2: stir, commotion
    See blather defined for English-language learners »
    Examples of BLATHER
    listening to a lot of blather from politicians about who’s to blame for the bad economy

    First Known Use of BLATHER
    1719
    Related to BLATHER
    Synonyms: ado, alarums and excursions, ballyhoo, commotion, bluster, bobbery, bother, bustle, clatter, clutter [chiefly dialect], coil, corroboree [Australian], disturbance, do [chiefly dialect], foofaraw, fun, furor, furore, fuss, helter-skelter, hoo-ha (also hoo-hah), hoopla, hubble-bubble, hubbub, hullabaloo, hurly, hurly-burly, hurricane, hurry, hurry-scurry (or hurry-skurry), kerfuffle [chiefly British], moil, pandemonium, pother, row, ruckus, ruction, rumpus, shindy, splore [Scottish], squall, stew, stir, storm, to-do, tumult, turmoil, uproar, welter, whirl, williwaw, zoo

    ———
    Works for me but I don’t know how the IPPC report could more blather than what “The Team” and Hansen have put out.

  94. Gunga Din says:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blander
    bland (blnd)
    adj. bland·er, bland·est
    1. Characterized by a moderate, unperturbed, or tranquil quality, especially:
    a. Pleasant in manner; smooth: a bland smile.
    b. Not irritating or stimulating; soothing: a bland diet.
    c. Exhibiting no personal worry, embarrassment, or concern: told a series of bland lies.
    2.
    a. Dull and insipid: a bland little drama.
    b. Having little or no distinctive flavor: bland cooking.

    Perhaps 1c is what he considers “a travesty”?

  95. Earl Allen,
    Please don’t insult Kiwis

  96. WTF says:

    ”The science is solid, but with a larger group it’s harder to reach a consensus……..

    LOL. The 97% is getting crowded out.

  97. AndyG55 says:

    GHowe says:

    Are blonders blander?

    That jokes a blinder, but it would be a blunder to put the blander blonders through a blender.

  98. Matt says:

    “……hundreds of international experts…”

    expert = former drip

  99. David A. Evans says:

    What entered my mind on seeing blander, (which is correct btw,) was related to cooking…

    Blender!

    Seems perfect as they’re cooking the books and blending datasets in ways they shouldn’t be.

    DaveE.

  100. Berényi Péter says:

    “The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently had its climate change-related research budget slashed by a fifth”

    Now, that’s painful. The upside, of course, is that climate scientists can easily build consensus around this fact. Especially if the activist kind is willing to abandon the idea of sustainability, for an ever increasing public debt is clearly not sustainable.

  101. G. S. Williams:

    If Kiwis wish to not be insulted, perhaps they should start a recall campaign.

  102. Dreadnought says:

    Good old Kevin ‘Travesty’ Trenberth appears to be howling into the darkness at his own ineptitude, and hopping up and down like a one-legged man at an arse-kicking competition.

    A rather unedifying spectacle, but definitely worth a chuckle!

  103. RDCII says:

    I think people are glossing over the most important thing Trenberth says here…he’s not saying that these new scientists are qualified, and the IPCC chose these new scientists because they consider them to be qualified (well, we know better, but that’s the IPCC line). What this means is that Trenberth is saying that the Consensus was achieved by keeping the input to a small “in crowd” of scientists, and that when the LARGER QUALIFIED scientific community is consulted, there IS NO CONSENSUS.
    Trenberth is saying the Consensus was always artificially achieved by excluding the input of a larger group of qualified scientists. That’s a big admission.

  104. Jon Jermey says:

    Maybe the exposure of AGW alarmism could form the basis for a new Scooby-Doo film?

    SHAGGY: “Scooby, it’s getting hotter! We’re all gonna fry!”

    VELMA: “No, wait! The crazy professor has just turned up the thermostat! All we have to do is turn it down again!”

    FRED: “And look who’s trying to cash his investments and sneak away! It’s Big Al, disguised as an environmentalist!

    DAPHNE: “Kevin and I have reached an understanding, guys. He’s going to turn State’s Evidence in return for immunity from prosecution.”

    THE TEAM (in chorus): “And we would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn’t been for those meddling deniers!”

  105. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    There are more people, it’s more diffuse, it’s harder to gain a consensus – quite frankly I find the whole process very depressing,” he said.

    Wow! There goes another opportunity for a serious group think session. What has the world come to?

  106. cheatsout says:

    In light of recent events, can we say that Kevin Trenberth is the Lance Armstrong of climate science? Just as Michael Mann is the Jerry Sandusky of climate science. Like two peas in a pod, they are.

  107. “The next IPCC report will be blander; it’s now harder to gain a consensus”
    A whiter shade of pale…

  108. James Bull says:

    How can he claim that there are too many people involved when they surveyed 10 000 scientists and they got 97% to agree!!
    (sarc)
    James Bull

  109. I checked under the sofa cushions. Bad news for Trenberth: No missing heat, just a few stale peanuts.

  110. Crispin in Beijing says:

    So what’s with this ‘second tier’ publication business? Is a second tier publication one that dares to print factual papers on temperatures, ice and solar activities without first checking with a ‘first tier’ team member if it ok, pretty please?

    Does a ‘second tier’ publication have an editor who is not under the thumb of a climate clique cohort willing and able to pull rank and threaten a rapid descent into penury?

    And what is a ‘first tier’ publication? Is it one that prints promises to find all that missing heat?

  111. TomRude says:

    Reality is aligned against these totalitarians.

  112. ManitobaKen says:

    re: Latimer Alder’s “climateer”, I like it, reminds me of mouseketeer, and the Mickey Mouse science that the crew uses.

  113. ”There are more people, it’s more diffuse, it’s harder to gain a consensus”

    Too many schnooks roil the troth.

  114. A Lovell says:

    With the previous report, the team virtually had a free ride. AR4 had several years as ‘the’ authoritative last word on ‘the science’. It is only relatively recently, and in a fairly piecemeal way, that it has been taken apart, both scientifically, by WUWT and many other great sites, and politically, eg. Donna Laframboise’s ‘Delinquent Teenager’.

    Sceptics/realists are armed, ready and eager for the next one. It will instantly be forensically examined by the many, now well established, sceptical sites. This was not the position last time, and the CAGWers know they will not be able to get away with sloppy, biased work this time. Also, they no longer have the uncritical support they enjoyed from their less extreme supporters, scientific and political, Their desperation is obvious.

  115. Brian H says:

    Too many non-Team scientists are getting involved, so it’s harder to reach (= enforce) consensus.

    Which is how science may yet right itself.

  116. Put the data in a blender
    What comes out is getting blander
    Kevin thought he’d played a blinder
    But we know it was a blunder

  117. Rod says:

    A Lovell, “Sceptics/realists are armed, ready and eager for the next one. It will instantly be forensically examined by the many, now well established, sceptical sites. This was not the position last time, and the CAGWers know they will not be able to get away with sloppy, biased work this time.”
    Sorry, but even since climategate and all the other ‘gates, the alarmists have continued to trot out unsustainable rubbish. They will continue to say/write/publish lies until they are subjected to dismissal, incarceration, or better still six weeks in the stocks in a public square with plenty of rotten tomatoes on hand.

  118. chris y says:

    “the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on global warming will be much worse than the last one.”
    Robert Orr, UN under secretary general for planning, November, 2010, while discussing the IPCC AR5.

    “Well thank you IPCC authors for letting us know what is really behind that “very likely” assessment of attribution 20th century warming. A lot of overbloated over confidence that cannot survive a few years of cooling.”
    Prof. Judith Curry, October 2011

    “For the most part, those who strongly support climate action do not do so because they’ve been rationally persuaded; in fact, they tend to be quite ignorant of the scientific details. People who reject climate science tend to know the most about it, because they’re motivated to learn about it in order to reject it.”
    David Roberts, Grist, October 2011

    Kevin Trenberth, 2012- “The next IPCC report will be blander; it’s now harder to gain a consensus”

    Kevin is now looking for his missing heat and his missing consensus. Perhaps its due to chronic exposure to Boulder’s second-hand cannabis exhaust laced with toxic OCO.

    Maybe the EPA could fund a study…

  119. chris y says:

    Trenberth blurts- “”The science is solid, but with a larger group it’s harder to reach a consensus,…”

    Umm, this is quite the revelation. Trenberth has just stated that the IPCC report is about reaching a consensus about something OTHER than the science.

    Kevin, when you say ‘solid’ science, I do not think it means what you think it means.

  120. Brian H says:

    “Hard though you may find it to believe, the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on global warming will be much worse than the last one.”

    Robert Orr, UN under secretary general for planning, November, 2010, while discussing the IPCC AR5.

    OK, I confess I added the unspoken introductory clause.

    But it is amazing what fear of having to actually justify your generalizations and conclusions will do, isn’t it?

  121. Greg Cavanagh says:

    The report will be “blander”; As in a dull read?

    Not exciting, no catastrophe, no “blame the humans”, no “few survivors”.
    No, it’ll be a dull scientific read. Only interesting to scientists. Well gosh shucks…

Comments are closed.