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.
No wonder most science magazines and such are losing subscriptions faster than ever.
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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 @ur momisugly 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.
==============================
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.
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 . . . .
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
The reviewer forgot to mention that a Democrat US Senate under Clinton also rejected Kyoto.
Kerrching
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.
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
Somebody never read something. Sounds like a particular Health Care Bill , don’t you think?
Brent in Calgary
Re Geckko says: November 27, 2010 at 2:57 am
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.
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…
Slaying the Sky Dragon
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6724
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]
Well whatever, a great free plug for your book.
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/
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!
Bob Tisdale says:
November 27, 2010 at 3:15 am
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.
I think it is a travesty that Trenberth can find no reason in RPJr’s book why anyone should employ him anymore
[snip – whoa! So far off topic there’s no scale for measurement ~mod]
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.
mod
Thank you for snipping that which prompted my response!
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.”