Dr. Roger Pielke Junior sent this along with the options to ignore it, or to publish in whole or in part. Apparently, Dr. Kevin Trenberth can’t account for the facts in the book, The Climate Fix, and it’s a travesty that he can’t. – Anthony
Guest post by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
Science magazine made the odd decision to choose Kevin Trenberth, a
long-time and vocal critic of mine, who has repeatedly on the losing
sides of public debates over hurricanes and disasters, to review my
book. For background, see:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/shameful-article-review-and-update.html
Not surprisingly, Trenberth’s unhinged review is full of errors and
mischaracterizations. Here are a few:
1. TRENBERTH: “An example that he might have mentioned, but does not,
is President George W. Bush’s 2001 rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on
the grounds that it would hurt the economy. ”
REALITY: Actually, Pielke discusses Bush’s rejection of Kyoto on pp. 39 and 44
2. TRENBERTH: “Pielke treats economic and environmental gains as
mutually exclusive”
REALITY: Not so. From p. 50, “[A]ction to achieve environmental goals
will have to be fully compatible with the desire of people around the
world to meet economic goals. There will be no other way.”
3. TRENBERTH: “Pielke does not address the international lobbying for
economic advantage inherent in the policy negotiations. ”
REALITY: Wrong again. The international economics of the climate
debate are discussed on pp. 59, 65, 109, 219, 231, and 233 and are a
theme throughout
4. TRENBERTH: “He objects to Working Group III’s favoring of
mitigation (which is, after all, its mission) while ignoring Working
Group II (whose mission is adaptation).”
REALITY: Again, not so. Chapter 5 is about the balance between
mitigation and adaptation in international policy and discusses both
IPCC WG II and WG III (see pp. 153-155). What Pielke objects to is
defining adaptation as the consequences of failed mitigation.
5. TRENBERTH: “His claims that “the science of climate change becomes
irrevocably politicized” because “[s]cience that suggested large
climatic impacts on Russia was used to support arguments for Russia’s
participation in the [Kyoto] protocol”—as if there would be no such
impacts and Russia would be a “winner”—look downright silly given the
record-breaking drought, heat waves, and wildfires in Russia this past
summer.”
REALITY: Egregious misrepresentation. Trenberth selectively uses half
of a quote to imply that Pielke was making a claim that he did not.
The part left out by Trenberth (p. 156) was the counterpoint —
specifically that science that suggested few impacts on Russia was
used in similar fashion by advocates to argue against the Kyoto
Protocol. Pielke concludes, “In this manner, the science of climate
change becomes irreovocably politiciized , as partisans on either side
of the debate selectively array bits of science that best support
their position.”
6. TRENBERTH: “Pielke stresses economic data and dismisses the
importance of loss of life.”
REALITY: Wrong again. Pielke discusses loss of life related to climate
change on pp. 176-178
7. TRENBERTH: “Geoengineering is also dealt with by Pielke, but only briefly.”
REALITY Not so. Pielke devotes an entire chapter to geoengineering (Chapter 5).
8. TRENBERTH: “[Pielke] does not address the practicality of storing
all of the carbon dioxide.”
REALITY: Again, wrong. Pielke addresses the practicality of carbon
dioxide storage on pp. 133-134
And even with all these errors and false claims, Trenberth concludes
that the book is on the right track:
“[P]rogressively decarbonizing the economy and adopting an approach of
building more resiliency to climate events would be good steps in the
right direction”
Anyone who has read The Climate Fix should also read Trenberth’s
review, as they will learn something about Science magazine and a part
of climate science community.
====================================
For those interested, Science Magazine offers Dr. Trenberth’s review here.
Unfortunately, it’s behind a paywall. Yeah, that’s gonna go far.
The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming is available at Amazon.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting investigation of earthquake swarms around 1999 in the Arctic basin….
http://www.iceagenow.com/Eruptions_as_big_as_Pompeii_under_Arctic_ice.htm
Some reviewers don’t read the book they’re reviewing, but in this case Trenberth doesn’t appear to have read the table of contents either
Methinks Pielke Jr’s book kills through and through all climate efforts undertaken so far, from the pov of an AGW believer. And we all know there’s nobody hatedmore than an apostate, a Traitor of the Faith.
Well, the facts never bothered the AGW-alarmists, which is proven once again here.
Dr. Pielke-
All you need to do is to find Trenberth’s missing heat for him and I am sure he will change his opinion of your work immediately.
Just a thought.
8. TRENBERTH: “[Pielke] does not address the practicality of storing
all of the carbon dioxide.”
ALL of the carbon dioxide? Wow! That would be really tough on the food crops, plants and the forests!
I live in Norway. To me it looks like this warming cycle has reached its peak, in we are heading into cooler times. CO2 is insignificant. Therefore this book is insignificant.
And Trenberths comments are certainly insignificant. Especially since his comments are of the political nature. We should leave that to the politicians. Trenberth et. al. are simply too dangerous. They want to spend money on ……a black hole. You know that hole, where all the hidden energy disappeared?
Its a travesty.
Considering that:
a) Mitigation is a colossally maladaptive and harmful use of money and resources, and
b) come Hell or high water (literally) China — and probably all of BRIC — are gonna do what it takes (burn coal and hydrocarbons) to prosper, not all the sound and fury and futility of IPCC, the UN, or anyone else is going to even cause a twitch in the steady rise of CO2 output.
Which is excellent. It means agriculture will continue to make free productivity gains and there may even be a smidge of warming, too. Maybe we’ll even be able to restore summer shipping in the Arctic to MWP levels!
Well, it is no surprise that a “scientist” of Trenberth’s calibre would pen a book review without troubling to do more than flick idly through it.
In fact, he probably got Bob “Towser” Ward to send him a few notes so he didn’t have to bother to even flick through it.
Trenberth basically acts as attack dog on books that do not fully and blindly support the AGW faith , therefore he does not actually need to really read them to review them , he knows there no good because fail the first requirement to fully and blindly support the AGW faith. And that is way he makes so many basic mistakes.
Travesty…
With spin and everything.
Our Ken manages to get it wrong…again.
How about the other book Trenberth reviewed in the same article on Science? The name should be Hack the Planet. Do not understand why he put these two books together…
Sorry, but I just laugh at Pielke and Trenberth and the lot of them. Their capacity for non sequitur seems boundless.
They, along with all the others urging forced policy intervention always come to the same common ground, without ever making the case:
Carbon bad. It is just so puerile.
And of course Pielke Jnr’s overriding problem. He spend acres of blog space and typeface pontificating on the politicization of sience and scientists as activists, “honest brokers” etc. etc. yet not once have I seen him admit that he is a funded academic in public policy. ANd surprise surprise, he always seems to find a need for public policy.
With climate change and “carbon emissions”, the true ramifications so far genuinely supported by the science is no policy. In fact it is reversal of a raft of stupid distorting damaging policies already enacted.
Once-formidable researchers have fitted themselves with blinders so that they cannot see the world around them. This allows them to continue their beliefs in the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. I have and will continue to use Trenberth et al (2002) as a reference for posts about ENSO. But I will emphasize papers such as Guan and Nigam 2008 and 2009. The differences are remarkable. Refer to the following post for links to the two Guan and Nigam papers:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/11/guan-and-nigam-2008-and-2009.html
Geckko says: (November 27, 2010 at 2:57 am) With climate change and “carbon emissions”, the true ramifications so far genuinely supported by the science is no policy.
Quite agree, Geckko; and with the whole tenor of your comment.
What I find oddest is that R A P jr’s wikipedia page hasn’t yet been updated to celebrate Trenberth’s decisive takedown of the book. Changed times indeed.
As a New Zealander I am proud of the achievements of many of my countrymen, including Dr Rutherford (pioneering atomic scientist), Dr Pickering (Head of NASA – in the days when it did amazing stuff), ‘Bomber’ Harris (Commander of RAF Bomber Command during WWII, is credited with saving London from almost certain destruction), Sir William Hamilton (invented and put into mass production his marine jet propulsion unit, the Hamilton Jet), John Britten, (creator of the revolutionary and spectacularly fast Britten Vtwin motorcycle), Bert Monroe (old age pensioner who set world motorcycle speed records at Bonneville on his much-modified 1922 Indian Scout streamliner which he had owned from almost new), Richard Pearse (built and flew his own aircraft prior to the Wright Bros). Thomas Brydone (pioneered the shipping of frozen meat from NZ to UK), Colin Murdoch (inventor of the disposable syringe), Morton Coutts (invented the continuous fermentation method of brewing beer).
Trenberth does not make it onto my list!
I see Britain is having the heaviest November snowfalls for seventeen years and more to come over the next two weeks. All this after the heavy snowfalls just ten months ago.
‘Geoff Alder says:
November 27, 2010 at 1:47 am
8. TRENBERTH: “[Pielke] does not address the practicality of storing
all of the carbon dioxide.”
ALL of the carbon dioxide? Wow! That would be really tough on the food crops, plants and the forests!’
Specially, the plants on the endanger list. Who knows, they may need 600ppm CO2 to keep them from dying out.
Maybe Trenberth should spend his time on looking for his lost heat instead of book reviews.
Anthony – How much does he pay you for advertising his book? Let’s face it, a book critiscised by a genuine scientist is sure to make the Christmas wish list of most of the posters here.
If you didn’t get paid, you’re missing a trick (or do you expect a ‘back scratch’ in the future ?)
James Fosser says:
November 27, 2010 at 4:18 am
I see Britain is having the heaviest November snowfalls for seventeen years and more to come over the next two weeks. All this after the heavy snowfalls just ten months ago.
====================================================
We all know that CAGW causes colder winters. Along with warmer winters, drier winters, wetter winters, no winters, all winters but not Shelley Winters.
James Fosser says:
November 27, 2010 at 4:18 am
I see Britain is having the heaviest November snowfalls for seventeen years and more to come over the next two weeks. All this after the heavy snowfalls just ten months ago.
—————————————-
The same over here in Northern Germany; First sub-zero-temps and an – albeit thin – layer of LASTING snow in late November for over two decades, actually.
I want my AGW back…
“who has repeatedly on the losing
sides of public debates over hurricanes and disasters”
This doesn’t sound right…
This is simply demonstrative of the quality of analysis of a mainstream AGW promoter.
old construction worker says:
November 27, 2010 at 5:00 am
Specially, the plants on the endanger list. Who knows, they may need 600ppm CO2 to keep them from dying out.
Hell, I’m old and live in the Frozen North. With hydro rates projected to double within 20 years, I’ll need 600ppm to keep from dying out!