Pielke Jr. on Trenberth's Book Review

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

Advertisements

67 thoughts on “Pielke Jr. on Trenberth's Book Review

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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…

  9. 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:

    “[P]rogressively decarbonizing the economy and adopting an approach of building more resiliency to climate events would be good steps in the
    right direction”

    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.

  10. 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

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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!

  14. 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.

  15. ‘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.

  16. 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 ?)

  17. 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.

  18. 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…

  19. who has repeatedly on the losing
    sides of public debates over hurricanes and disasters

    This doesn’t sound right…

  20. 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!

  21. @ old Construction Worker
    ‘Specially, the plants on the endanger list. Who knows, they may need 600ppm CO2 to keep them from dying out.’
    All of the CO2 in the atmosphere amounts to 2,900 giga tonnes. Which looks and sounds like a lot of storage but amounts to a mere 380 ppm or 0.038%. I agree with you we should be aiming at 600 ppm which should take about 110 to 150 years.

  22. 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.”
    Some warmists say this is a consequence of disappearing arctic sea ice; other warmists say it is a consequence of a slowdown of the gulf stream; in any case, they say it has been foretold/projected by the models. Which i don’t doubt – they surely have a model run for every possible future at hand. Harddisks are large these days. AGW, the all-knowing eye.

  23. Kevin Trenberth, Josh Willis, and Pielke Pere engaged in an online discussion about the missing heat last Spring which was very instructive. Kevin clings vainly to the hope that the missing heat can be found deep in the oceans, and Roger and Josh were trying to disabuse him of the notion. Denial of reality is going to be an ongoing problem for the alarmists if we cool as I expect.
    Critical Thinker @ 12:42 AM
    I maintain that I can see the effect of the Gakkel Ridge eruptions in 1999 on a time series of Arctic Ice. A hole appeared in the ice briefly over the Gakkel Ridge at just the right time, on the reconstruction. I understand that satellite pictures of the area and the time are in existence, but difficult of access. These pictures apparently show the area covered with clouds at the time. I believe a meteorologist could look at those clouds and tell whether they were ordinary Arctic clouds or the clouds which would appear over open water or thinned, warmed, ice. I’ve been unable to interest anyone in finding those pictures and making the determination, from Andy Revkin to the more local curious.
    I think you may have a big point about the effect of that 1999 vulcanism. I don’t think it is possible yet to determine the thermal effect of that vulcanism, since the amount of vulcanism hasn’t even been well estimated.
    It would have to be a huge amount to effect the ice even years down the line. I’m doubtful that vulcanism has caused the melt over the last decade, but I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone else does either.
    ==============================

  24. For those interested, Science Magazine offers Dr. Trenberth’s review here.
    Unfortunately, it’s behind a paywall. Yeah, that’s gonna go far.

    Paywall for a book review? I guess something had to lend weight to the review.

  25. After reading this thread I took what is obviously the correct course of action:
    I added ”The Climate Fix” to my cart at amazon.com . . . .

  26. In reply to James Foster and Dirk H:
    DirkH says:
    November 27, 2010 at 6:35 am
    James Fosser says:
    November 27, 2010 at 4:18 am
    “I see Britain is having the heaviest November snowfalls for seventeen years….”
    “Some warmists say this is a consequence of disappearing arctic sea ice; …”
    Ewing and Donn thinks the Arctic has acted as a planetary “thermostat”, turning on and off ice ages
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,893485,00.html

  27. Trenberth’s complete lack scientific objectivity is obvious from his review and past comments.
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/shameful-article-review-and-update.html
    As noted in this link, Trenberth in the public media labels a peer reviewed paper “shameful”. When asked to provide a scientific basis for his emotion laden statement, he can provide none.
    The fact that Trenberth was selected to be a lead IPCC author shows why the IPCC reports lack scientific objectivity. He was specifically selected because he supports a paradigm and ideology as opposed to his ability to analysis data and reach conclusions that are not predetermined.
    The objective of the IPCC process is to provide to a science looking report to back a political objective and is impractical and economically flawed.
    A whole host of parasitic companies have jumped on the AGW band wagon. Scientific America’s recent article on a country wide electrical utility network is one example. The author of the article is a consultant in that field and spends the entire article talking about electrical technology (For example super high voltage DC links. The cost for a DC back to AC converter is $1 billion and there is a 1% energy loss in the conversion.). The justification for spending billions upon billions for the electrical grid upgrades is to avoid brown-outs.
    The brown-outs will be caused by not building power plants and instead spending public money on interment power sources such as wind turbines and solar.
    Electric cars will create a massive increase in electric power demand (the power required for an electric car is roughly the current energy required for a household) which will require a very large investment in electrical infrastructure and new power plants. If you take away the subsidy for purchase of electrical cars, add the cost for battery replacement, and then add the cost for utility system upgrades and new power plants that option is not viable on a country wide basis.
    Obvious practical alternatives (If there is no scientific basis for extreme AGW then carbon free is no longer a constraint and an objective.) is more fuel efficient gasoline cars, practical energy efficient building upgrades, and a movement to natural gas cars and natural gas electrical generation. There are massive natural gas reserves in the US and Canada.

  28. Roger Carr says:
    November 27, 2010 at 3:34 am
    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.

    I agree. [2]
    The agreement was greater than initially expected.
    You’re a big surprise
    About statistical significance,
    You’re a big surprise
    About statistical significance,
    http://geckkosworld.blogspot.com/search/label/climate%20change
    Real x Vitual …………..????????
    http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/9621/ar2tempsim.jpg

  29. Somebody never read something. Sounds like a particular Health Care Bill , don’t you think?
    Brent in Calgary

  30. Re 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.

    Disagree somewhat. I think RPJr makes sense. Decarbonising is a sensible thing to do given supply security and resource competition, plus availability of more efficient alternatives. If the objective is wealth redistribution and to uplift billions of people to the same standards of living we have, energy demands will be enormous, and resource competition increases. Problem is energy policy has been hijacked by green policy when they’re different things. So in the UK, we can’t have cleaner coal power stations built to replace older, inefficient ones. We can’t have nuclear stations because although they’re low carbon, they’re not green.
    Same’s true with building more resiliency. There was the previous fuss about storm damage supposedly due to climate change, but actually due to poor development controls and building designs. Yet here in the UK, we still seem to happily allow building on flood plains and at risk areas and cut funding (directly or indirectly) for flood defences, flood protection and divert resources into protecting biodiversity instead of infrastructure. Bad policies that seem to be driven by bad science.

  31. We had the largest, thickest, and stickiest snow storm on the Southern Oregon Coast in modern memory last week. It didn’t last long, but while it fell, it covered the local beaches and built up. This is in the “Banana Belt” area where it can be 70 degrees or warmer in any given month.
    Its a travesty that we are getting all of this snow, when Trenberth guarantied us runaway warmth…

  32. Alexander K says:
    November 27, 2010 at 3:55 am
    “As a New Zealander I am proud of the achievements of many of my countrymen, including …. , ….‘Bomber’ Harris (Commander of RAF Bomber Command)…”
    A very impressive list from NZ you got there, Alexander!
    Fantastic people all of them, except Bomber Harris, me thinks.
    [snip – whoa! So far off topic there’s no scale for measurement ~mod]

  33. I’m more than happy to endure the inevitable claims from the various $7 an hour trolls who infest this blog that this represents some kind of crazed conspiracy theory. The facts speak for themselves: facts which you’ll find everywhere from books such as Christopher Booker’s The Real Global Warming Scam to blogs across the world from Jo Nova’s and Andrew Bolt’s in Australia, Lubos Motl’s in Czech Republic, Donna LaFramboise’s and ClimateAudit in Canada, P Gosselin’s in Germany,
    and, of course, in all the great US ones headed by Watts Up With That and Climate Depot.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100065683/why-i-now-deeply-regret-my-last-post/

  34. Louise, I just bought a case of these books from Amazon, most of them destined for my misguided AGW-believing friends. Can I send you one? Merry Christmas!

  35. Bob Tisdale says:
    November 27, 2010 at 3:15 am

    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’ve noted that some of the skeptical scientists who endured years of ridicule for suggesting that CO2’s effect might be overstated have picked up some psychological scars. No names, though I’ll note Richard Lindzen seems to be one who has avoided the problems pretty well.
    It appears Trenberth (and others I won’t name) may be going through a similar process. Probably worse – they’re also losing the pedestals they’ve erected and enjoyed standing upon as the last decade has brought challenges in the “warmest yet” headlines.
    Just another aspect of AGW that will be interesting in review 30 years from now.

  36. I think it is a travesty that Trenberth can find no reason in RPJr’s book why anyone should employ him anymore

  37. You can always tell when someone has a weak argument by two signs: they resort to the mischaracterization of their opponents views (with plenty of strawmen) or to an abundance of ad hominem attacks — and usually both. To see such poor character in the the scientific community — immature, arrogant, and just plain mea- spiritedness — just demonstrates that the weakness of human nature is an continuous challenge. These scientists could benefit greatly from a visit from the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future.

  38. Louise says:
    November 27, 2010 at 5:37 am
    “Let’s face it, a book critiscised [sic] by a genuine scientist is sure to make the Christmas wish list of most of the posters here.”
    Particularly when that “genuine scientist” makes so many obvious errors – as detailed here. Seems the AGW crisis industry employs many such “genuine scientists.”

  39. James Fosser says:
    November 27, 2010 at 4:18 am (Edit)
    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.

    I’ve just been out to warm up the engines of my vehicles, tonight will be a shocker for low temperature. Still, my old dad told me an old weather saying today which gives me hope.
    “If November ice will bear a duck, not much after but slush and muck.”
    We’ll see if this pre-war wisdom holds good seven decades later…

  40. Alexander K says:
    November 27, 2010 at 3:55 am
    Im almost ashamed to say that he is a fellow countryman of mine.
    kwik,
    Bomber Harris did a tough job during a dark time in the period of the British empire. Dont allow todays leftist appeasing soft “c8cks” try and blot his name out of the history books. We should be so lucky to have someone like Bomber Harris (ie. a man who possesses a spine) in government today.
    Mailman

  41. One wonders if Trenberth actually read the book, or had someone else provide a summary to him.
    The part I love the best is that “Trenberth selectively uses half
    of a quote to imply that Pielke was making a claim that he did not”
    , when the actual text in the book refers to the fact that partisans of either side selectively quote the facts that support their side of the argument.
    The irony must be lost on Trenberth.

  42. Pielke Jr and Trenberth both live (or at least work) in Boulder, Colorado.
    It’s time for Live Combat! Pearl Street Mall in front of the Boulder Bookstore (selling copies of both guy’s books). High Noon. 12/21 Winter Solstice.
    Trenberth uses a “heat ray”, powered by the “missing warming”. Travesty.
    Pielke Jr. uses a “Squirrel Getter” super-soaker squirt gun. Eldorado Springs H2O
    No CO2 generated in combat (except heavy breathing). Carbon-neutral, green city council approves.
    My bet is on RP Jr.
    Trenberth ran out of ammo long, long ago. His ice-covered remains should last until May.

  43. orkneygal says:
    November 27, 2010 at 1:25 am
    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.

    As with any attempt to prove a negative, trying to find that which never was, is just as futile.
    That is to say that “Trenberth’s missing heat” is the essence of the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
    That’s a wee bit of Irish folklore, regarding said pot of gold, leprechauns and all that.
    Maybe Trenberth should resort to searching for leprechauns? Aye!
    :o)

  44. ” it’s a travesty that he can’t.”
    A travesty of what?
    Travesties are always travesties of something else (most commonly travesties of justice), so what is the something else in this case?

  45. Science, RoHa. Not uncommon to drop a word in informal communication; people still know what you’re saying. I dropped a word from my previous sentence to illustrate.

  46. Louise says:
    November 27, 2010 at 5:37 am
    ‘Anthony – How much does he pay you for advertising his book? ‘
    Probably not as much as you’re getting (is it $7 per hour now?) for trolling here. (sarc off)

  47. Ah, the name Louise. Not connected to the London Telegraphs green goddess I presume. Has been busy this week pasting all sorts. Two gems amongst many.
    This has turned up everywhere, this is the Telegraphs spin.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8159991/Global-warming-has-slowed-because-of-pollution.html
    This one is really breathtaking.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8104428/Helena-Christensen-calls-for-action-on-climate-change.html
    Mick

  48. Jim Cole says:
    November 27, 2010 at 5:08 pm
    “Pielke Jr and Trenberth both live (or at least work) in Boulder, Colorado.”
    I think the winther 2010 will be hard in Boulder Colorado.
    Its a travesty.

  49. @Atomic Hairdryer

    I think RPJr makes sense. Decarbonising is a sensible thing to do given supply security and resource competition, plus availability of more efficient alternatives.

    Which is just another non-sequitur.
    When more efficient alternatives are available they will be developed and used.
    Supply security as a concept is as bad as “the precautionary principle”. We trade with others. We exchange stuff to improve our standard of living. The Middle East for example are scared witless of “demand security”. Those who sell us raw materials or are as vulnerable as we are who buy them.
    Plus, fossil fuel supply is far more globally diversified than many of the raw materials essential for most of the touted “alternatives”. China is the only material source of rare earth metals – and they recently banned there exportation.
    We will always be dependent on trade with other countries as they will be vulnerable to us in return.
    So, we are still left with no case made.
    Everyone who loves central planning and direction, because they think they know how best to organise our trade, please step aside.

  50. Well as to item #1; President George W. Bush’s rejection of Kyoto; hey Earth to critics ! this event was PRECEDED by the US Senate rejecting the Kyoto Treaty on a 94 to zilch, nothing, nada, vote. So who had GWB pegged as someone likely to run into a burning building just as it was about to collapse ?

  51. “”””” RoHa says:
    November 27, 2010 at 9:56 pm
    ” it’s a travesty that he can’t.”
    A travesty of what?
    Travesties are always travesties of something else (most commonly travesties of justice), so what is the something else in this case? “””””
    Well if you had said that “Travesties” are NEVER “travesties of something else”; you would more likely be correct; just as a “Haircut” is NOT a “haircut of something else.”
    A travesty is a travesty; look it up in the OED to see what it means.

  52. Pielke Fils has put this on his own website, now.
    Let’s see, we have Phony Jones, Piltdown Mann, and now Travesty Trenberth.
    =============================================

Comments are closed.