Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) a U.S. publicly funded research center, uses the term “denier” six times in this upcoming talk, which he has submitted as a preprint to the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in full public view. I’m reproducing it in full below, with only one comment: he uses the word “denier” six times in his address, one that will reach hundreds if not thousands of AMS members. I’m disappointed that the AMS embraces this language. His planned talk is enlightening, I suggest that everyone read it in full. Dr. Trenberth also helpfully includes his NCAR email address in the publicly available document, such that if anyone has any suggestions for him on how he might improve this address to the AMS before he gives it, he can be sent comments.
UPDATE: Physicist Luboš Motl has some thoughts, see here
UPDATE2: Steve McIntyre weighs in with some historical perspective as does Warren Meyer with A New Scientific Low
UPDATE3: Willis Eschenbach offers an open letter to Dr. Trenberth – highly recommended reading.
“Joint Presidential Session on Communicating Climate Change,”
This talk is in honor of my friend and colleague Stephen Schneider, who was pre-eminent in communicating climate change to the public. I have given many public talks on climate change, and I have always tried to emphasize the observational facts and their interpretation, rather than the less certain projections into the future. I will illustrate how I have always tried to present the material in a fairly policy neutral way, and I have pointed out ways to encourage discussion about value systems and why these lead to potentially different actions about what one does about climate change. For many years now I have been an advocate of the need for a climate information system, of which a vital component is climate services, but it is essential to recognize that good climate services and information ride upon the basic observations and their analysis and interpretation. The WCRP Observations and Assimilation Panel, which I have chaired for 6 years, has advocated for the climate observing system and the development of useful products. Moving towards a form of operational real time attribution of climate and weather events is essential, but needs to recognize the shortcomings of models and understanding (or the uncertainties, as Steve would say). Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of “of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming”. That kind of comment is answering the wrong question.
===============================================================
The above is the foreword posted on the AMS website along with the link to the PDF there. Here’s the text of PDF of his upcoming talk, which I’ve saved locally also in case the main one disappears or is changed.
AMS, 23-27 January 2011, Seattle, Washington
“Joint Presidential Session on Communicating Climate Change,”
COMMUNICATING CLIMATE SCIENCE AND THOUGHTS ON CLIMATEGATE
Kevin E Trenberth*
NCAR, Boulder, CO 80307
1. INTRODUCTION: CLIMATEGATE
This article briefly summarizes my views that have formed in recent years on communicating climate change in the light of first hand experiences in so-called “climategate”. The latter term refers to the emails and personal information about individuals, including me, that were illegally taken from the University of East Anglia through a hacking incident. The material published relates to the work of the globally-respected Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and other scientists around the world. The selective publication of some stolen emails taken out of context and distorted is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with the climate change issue in a responsible way. Instead there should be condemnation of the abuse, misuse and downright lies about the emails: that should be the real climategate!
I was involved in just over 100 of the hacked email messages. In my case, one cherry-picked email quote went viral and at one point it was featured in over 110,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability. But that is the way a vast majority of the internet stories and blogs interpreted it.
*Corresponding author: Kevin E Trenberth, NCAR, PO Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80303.
Email: trenbert@ucar.edu
Several of the emails document the detailed procedures used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR4 Fourth Assessment report for Chapter 3 (for which Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth were coordinating lead authors) and other chapters. In a hacked email from Phil Jones (not cc’d to me), he wrote: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” AR4 was the first time Jones was on the writing team of an IPCC Assessment. The comment was naïve and sent before he understood the process and before any lead author meetings were held. It was not sanctioned by me. Both of the papers referred to were in fact cited and discussed in the IPCC. As a veteran of 3 previous IPCC assessments I was well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out. We assessed all papers even though not all could be included owing to space limitations. Moreover, the extensive review process, which is a hundred times more rigorous than that for any individual paper, brought to our attention any papers we may have missed.
Three investigations of the alleged scientific misconduct of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — one by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, a second by the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Royal Society, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, and the latest by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell — have confirmed what climate scientists have never seriously doubted: established scientists depend on their credibility and have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues. Moreover, they are unlikely to make false claims that other colleagues can readily show to be incorrect. They are also understandably (but inadvisably) reluctant to share complex data sets with non-experts that they perceive as charlatans (Hasselman 2010).
Scientists make mistakes and often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results. They regularly argue with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions. These debates follow the normal procedure of scientific inquiry. The IPCC assessments are a means of taking stock and avoiding some of the “noise” created by the different approaches and thereby providing conservative but robust statements about what is known and what is not.
2. THE DENIERS
But their critics are another matter entirely, and their false claims have not been scrutinized or criticized anything like enough! Perhaps climategate comes from the somewhat inept response of climate scientists to criticisms from various sources. The climate change deniers have very successfully caused major diversions from the much needed debate about what to do about climate change and how to implement it. It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers. Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended. In a debate it is impossible to counter lies, and caveated statements show up poorly against loudly proclaimed confident statements that often have little or no basis. Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. Moreover a debate actually gives alternative views credibility. On the other hand there is a lot of scope for debate about exactly what to do about the findings.
3. THE MEDIA
The media have been complicit in this disinformation campaign of the deniers. Climate varies slowly and so the message remains similar, year after year — something not exciting for journalists as it is not “news”. Controversy is the fodder of the media, not truth, and so the media amplify the view that there are two sides and give unwarranted attention to views of a small minority or those with vested interests or ideologies. The climate deniers have been successful in by-passing peer review yet attracting media attention. In those respects the media are a part of the problem. But they have to be part of the solution.
4. THE SCIENTISTS
The main societal motivation of climate scientists is to understand the dynamics of the climate system (both natural and human induced), and to communicate this understanding to the public and governments. Most climate scientists have the goal of establishing the best information about the state of affairs as a basis for subsequent discussion about what to do about it: policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. They have faith in the scientific method and the efficacy of the established peer-review process in separating verifiable scientific results from baseless assertions. They find it disturbing that blogs by uninformed members of the public are given equal weight with carefully researched information backed up with extensive observational facts and physical understanding.
While statements about climate change are cautious and all sorts of caveats are applied by scientists, or else they are criticized by colleagues, the same is not true for the deniers. Many scientists withdraw from the public arena into the Ivory Tower after being bruised in skirmishes with the public via the press. Others are diverted from their science to address the concerns. There is continued pressure to do policy relevant but not policy prescriptive science. Scientists who cross the line to being advocates for courses of action are often perceived as pariahs by their colleagues because their science is potentially biased.
Many scientists also do not help with regard to communicating the role of global warming in climate. Prior to the 2007 IPCC report, it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that “there is no human influence on climate” and the task was to prove that there was. The burden of proof is high. In general in this case, scientists assume that there is no human influence and to prove that there is requires statistical tests to exceed the 95% confidence level (5% significance level) to avoid a chance finding of a false positive. To declare erroneously that the null hypothesis is not correct is called a type I error, and the science is very conservative in this regard about making such an error. Scientists are thus prone to make what are called type II errors whereby they erroneously accept the null hypothesis when it is in fact false.
Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence. Such a null hypothesis is trickier because one has to hypothesize something specific, such as “precipitation has increased by 5%” and then prove that it hasn’t. Because of large natural variability, the first approach results in an outcome suggesting that it is appropriate to conclude that there is no increase in precipitation by human influences, although the correct interpretation is that there is simply not enough evidence (not a long enough time series). However, the second approach also concludes that one cannot say there is not a 5% increase in precipitation. Given that global warming is happening and is pervasive, the first approach should no longer be used. As a whole the community is making too many type II errors.
So we frequently hear that “while this event is consistent with what we expect from climate change, no single event can be attributed to human induced global warming”. Such murky statements should be abolished. On the contrary, the odds have changed to make certain kinds of events more likely. For precipitation, the pervasive increase in water vapor changes precipitation events with no doubt whatsoever. Yes, all events! Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been, and so too is the atmospheric water vapor amount and thus the moisture available for storms. Granted, the climate deals with averages. However, those averages are made up of specific events of all shapes and sizes now operating in a different environment. It is not a well posed question to ask “Is it caused by global warming?” Or “Is it caused by natural variability?” Because it is always both. It is worth considering whether the odds of the particular event have changed sufficiently that one can make the alternative statement “It is unlikely that this event would have occurred without global warming.” For instance, this probably applies to the extremes that occurred in the summer of 2010: the floods in Pakistan, India, and China and the drought, heat waves and wild fires in Russia.
Another point is that we have substantial natural climate variability from events like El Niño and La Niña. Given that global warming is always going in one direction, it is when natural variability and global warming reinforce one another that records are broken and extremes occur. This takes place with warming in the latter part of and shortly after an El Niño event, for instance, as has happened in 2010.
When asked about what could and should be done about climate change, many scientists back away for fear of being labeled advocates. However, scientists should note that the IPCC strives to carry out policy relevant but not policy prescriptive science assessments, with considerable success. Given the physical science findings, what are the ramifications for society and the environment? It is important for scientists to recognize that Working Group II of IPCC deals extensively with the past and future expected impacts of climate change, the vulnerabilities that exist, and the adaptation and coping strategies for dealing with these. Similarly, Working Group III deals with options for mitigating the problem by reducing future emissions of greenhouse gases. Scientists should recognize that these options exist and, to the extent they are familiar with them, state what they are. Scientists should also be aware of the national and international discussions and negotiations underway to address the problem. Putting a price on carbon, carbon taxes and offsets, and cap and trade systems can be discussed in a neutral way to inform the public.
Personally, I close this aspect of my presentations with a statement that “you will be
affected by climate change, and you already are, whether you believe it or not. But more than that, you will be affected by the outcomes of legislation and international treaties, perhaps even more!” As an example of misguided legislation one can point to the subsidies for production of ethanol from corn in the United States which produces marginal gains in fuel without adequately accounting for the damage to soils and other environmental aspects, and effects on the food supply.
5. THE POLITICIANS
The argument is that to make decisions, all aspects of the problem must be taken into account and it is the politicians who are supposed to do this, not the scientists, in order to represent all interests. My own observation is that while some politicians are indeed well informed and understand their role, most are not. The corrupting influence of funding from all sources of vested interests prevents many of them from doing the right thing on behalf of the country and civilization as a whole. It is clear that climate science has become politicized, and scientists are slow to recognize this. Politicians hide behind the apparent uncertainties and have failed to act. Hence while politicians are often also part of the problem, implementation of policies necessarily goes through them.
In the days of hundreds of TV channels and the internet, people do not have to hear “inconvenient truths” and become informed. As scientists we can continue to try with our message of what is happening and why, what is expected in the future, and what options there are to change the outcome, but we need to do more.
6. WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Environmental groups and one segment of scientists have focused on what is called “mitigation” that aims to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and slow and ultimately stop climate change in its tracks. Decarbonizing the economy is very important for many reasons, not the least of which is climate change. However, by itself, I view this as short-sighted, as the steps required are so revolutionary as to be highly unlikely to be achieved. Instead, we must recognize that while there is considerable merit in slowing the pace of climate change, and we should work to reduce emissions, it is also essential that much stronger steps be taken to plan for and adapt to the change that is surely coming. How we cope with challenges ahead and build more resiliency in our system, are major questions that should be higher on the agenda.
The major failures in making progress, such as in Copenhagen in December 2009, imply that we should be more accepting that climate disasters are inevitable, along with environmental refugees, and so what are we going to do with them? Some steps in this direction were taken in the recent meeting in Cancun. It is too bad if success means that we are able to limit the outcome to an ongoing series of environmental disasters that inevitably happen locally as hurricanes strike, heat waves and wild fires take their toll, droughts cause famine, and water shortages or flooding (ironically — in different places, or different times) cause mayhem. The summer of 2010 with floods in Pakistan, India, and China, and devastating drought, heat waves and wild fires in Russia, is a case in point. Indeed, 2010 provided many such examples from the New England flooding and “Snowmageddon” in the Washington D.C. area in February and March to the flooding in California associated with a “Pineapple Express” of moisture from extending from the Hawaiin Islands to California in December. Growth of these disasters into a major catastrophe, war and strife, is something to be avoided if at all possible, but it is likely where we are headed.
The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean that the planet is already over-populated, and far too many things are simply not sustainable in anything like their current form. The atmosphere is a global commons, shared by all. As we continue to exploit it and use it as a dumping ground, the outcome is the “tragedy of the commons” and we all lose. Unfortunately, society is not ready to face up to these challenges and the needed changes in the way we create order and govern ourselves. Population issues are largely missing from the discussion, such as it is. Nonetheless, a number of pragmatic steps are possible, but they require planning for decades ahead, not simply the time until the next election.
Building a better observing system for climate, better climate and earth system models and predictions, and the associated improved information system and climate services is one essential step (Trenberth 2008) as it reduces uncertainties, but uncertainties and natural variability are never going away. Nevertheless, the natural variability provides valuable opportunities for ongoing “news” and education, as teachable moments, but many scientists have not been helpful, and many TV weathercasters are poorly informed and sometimes downright hostile (Wilson 2009).
It continues to be frustrating at how difficult it is to find out just what has happened and the context from US government sources. Ironically, it is easier to find a forecast (e.g., http://www.cpc.noaa.gov ), than it is to find and analysis and assessment of what has happened and why. Waiting 6 years for the next IPCC report is not an option. The media continue to report highly misleading material about how cold outbreaks, snow events, or one cold month nullifies global warming when the big picture continues to indicate otherwise.
Routine climate services and regular assessments of the state of the climate and the short-term prognosis as part of a climate service, much as is done for weather forecasts, is an essential development. At present this is being approached at best in a piecemeal fashion, and the needed investment is not available. It should be a high priority and linked to any climate legislation on mitigation and adaptation.
Climate change is a complex and multifaceted problem, involving not just the environment, but also energy, water, sustainability, the economy, foreign policy and trade, security and defense. Far too little is happening on all fronts: communicating and informing the public, reducing emissions and building new energy infrastructure by decarbonizing the economy (mitigation), and planning to cope with future climate change and its consequences.
REFERENCES
Hasselmann, K., 2010: The climate change game. Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo919, 511-512.
Trenberth, K. E., 2008: Observational needs for climate prediction and adaptation. WMO Bulletin, 57 (1), 17-21.
Wilson, K., 2009: Opportunities and obstacles for television weathercasters to report on climate change. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, 1457-1465
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The tone of Trenberth’s proposed AMS talk makes me think of that evoked by the opening lines of a poem:
I feel a despair in Trenberth as if he knows the AGW Libation Bearers are prepared to pack up and go home.
It is as if he senses that the scientific tide has turned and is much less favorable for IPCC AGW supporters.
John
Lazy T,
The more you post, the more of a clueless fool you appear to be.
The change in the atmosphere of one-hundreth of one percent is not even measurable. And it is not “waste,” it is beneficial plant fertilizer. Sorry you’re ignorant of the difference.
As a direct result of increased CO2, agricultural production is rising significantly, thus keeping a lid on rising food prices, which especially benefits the billion people who subsist on less than $1 a day. Not that you give a damn about them.
Your canard about “sponging off communal resources like the atmosphere” is the same thing as accusing charities of “sponging” off the economy in order to help the less fortunate.
Obviously you are a product of the dysfunctional government education industry. Sad for you. And for the rest of us.
Come on Guys! This has to be a spoof written by some wicked Denier…
LazyTeenager says:
January 13, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Good grief! I thought climate skeptics were the Gaian cultists. An unshakable faith that the conditions on the planet will not change irrespective of how much waste is dumped into the atmosphere sounds very very Gaian.
And sponging off communal resources like the atmosphere without paying seems very very left wing to me.
The faith belongs to the people who believe the alternative hypothesis without falsifying the null. In this case, you. Pointing out that you haven’t excluded the null isn’t faith, it’s fact. You can huff and puff until blue in the face but the fact is that the null still stands. Unless, of course, Trenberth can pull that formula out of his keester and show what the temperatures would have been without the additional CO2. But he’ll have to keep a running count, because I won’t be holding my breath.
Chris Wright says
——
The history of science is basically the story of how one scientific ‘fact’ after another turned out to be completely wrong.
——
No it’s not. Very rarely has it been a case of “completely” wrong.
The use of evidence tends to place a lot constraints on how wrong a scientific theory can be. E.g. Relativity is a generalization of Newtonian dynamics, so Newton was “wrong” in some weak sense, but he was right enough that Newtonian dynamics is still used to place a rover on Mars to a few meters accuracy.
It’s such nonsense that Louise supports it unreservedly. How bad is that?
Arg. Pamela, it’s “populus” the noun, not “populous” the adjective. Unless you are trying for “the populous populus”?
😉
Jumbo says
———
Over a decade of flat temps does nothing to prick their curiosity about the validity of AGW. Add 10 years of cooling and they still won’t budge.
——–
so what is your favorite temperature data set Jimbo? The ones I have seen all show warming.
The CRU data set was flat for a while if memory serves, but weren’t climate skeptics trying to fly the idea that the CRU data set was fake? Except when it showed cooling.
Which would mean that Phil Jones was simultaneously faking the data to prove global warming and faking the data to prove global cooling. All very confusing really.
Which, by the way LT, is why Trenberth wants to flip the null hypothesis on its head. It is too inconvenient to prove your theory when you just know it is right.
As someone noted, “unequivocal” doesn’t mean what he (and the IPCC) think it means. It applies to communications or communicators, not to propositions or data. And it basically means “clearly expressed”.
For the opposite, see below*:
So the statement, “Given that global warming is unequivocal …” is nonsense. He and the IPCC are trying to fudge the word they really mean, “unquestionable”. But that would be too overt.
*The Bard on equivocation:
—PORTER:
…
Faith, here’s an equivocator that could swear in both the
scales against either scale, who committed treason enough
for God’s sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven. O,
come in, equivocator.
…
MACDUFF:
What three things does drink especially instigate?
PORTER:
Marry, sir, nose-painting, sleep, and urine.
Lechery, sir, it provokes and unprovokes: it provokes the
desire, but it takes away the performance. Therefore much
drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery: it
makes him, and it mars him; it sets him on and it takes
him off; it persuades him and disheartens him; makes him
stand to and not stand to; in conclusion, equivocates him in
a sleep, and giving him the lie, leaves him.
😉
colleague Stephen Schneider, who was pre-eminent in communicating climate change to the public.
He sure was
Bulldust says:
January 13, 2011 at 6:32 pm
How can this guy consider himself a scientist when he makes comments like the one on sea temperatures… so if the data doesn’t support his hypothesis, his hypothesis is still correct? He has fallen so far from the scientific method it’s embarrassing.
Embarrassment for global warmers? Nothing that a little whitewash can’t take care of.
Come on people, over 200 negative comments.
I will post the first positive comment, Hmmm, let me think,
Oh, I got it,
Kevin did not use the victim card. That has to be worth something?
Thanks Ross.
I will repeat my request to WUWT readers. Please read this carefully and with an open mind. Since the publication of Ar4 steve McIntyre and Ross ( and the readers of CA) have known about the issue with the paragraph Jones/Trenbert wrote. We knew this BEFORE climategate. But this instance of rewriting the science has been lost in the noise of other issues, some of them spurious. When you write to Sensenbrenner, please keep this in mind. If we all speak with one voice, if we all raise the same issue, there is a chance we get it addressed. It is a real issue. The documentation is solid. It’s the BEST CASE you have.
If you keep your complaint to that one single issue, they cannot ignore it as easily. if you raise 16 other issues, rest assured the system will find a way to ignore the important issue. We saw that happen with climategate.
The case Ross has is made stronger by the existence of the climategate mails, because there is evidence that the ill treatment Ross’ work received was premeditated. They wanted to keep it out of AR4. they were force to consider it, and when they considered it, they dismissed it with no cited science to back up their claims. It’s really open and shut, unless Trenberth/Jones can cite a source for their claim.
So focus. They premeditated treating Ross’ paper differently than others. The record shows they did. They need to explain THAT.
With Ross’ follow up paper You should expect this to be a battleground for Ar5 as well. It’s a key issue where better science is needed and Ross has a view of things that cannot be brushed off in a perfunctory manner. One way to insure that UHI will get a second look is to press for a resolution of Ross’ claim.
Focus.
I wrote to Dr Trenberth.
Here is his reply to my query and observation below. I am not a scientist so did not like to comment on other areas.
To: Helen Armstrong
Subject: Re: Your address to AMS
Because science is evidence and physically based, it is based on facts, and one who says otherwise is a denier. The events in Queensland are indeed a portent for the futures and a sign of global warming. Since you live in the neighborhood, you perhaps should take note.
Kevin Trenberth
On 1/13/2011 6:55 AM, Helen Armstrong wrote:
Dear Mr Trenberth,
Re your manuscript, http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Manuscript/Paper180230/ClimategateThoughts4AMS_v2.pdf I have a query. Why do you resort to ad hominem attack on persons sceptical of CAGW by labelling them deniers? Can you not carry your argument without descending into abuse? It does not add to the gravitas of any one to do so.
An observation re the media. Please, have you ever seen the media do a good news story, except at the end of a bulletin to make people feel better? Of course the media run ‘the end of the world is here’ stories – case in point re the Queensland floods here in Australia. Link here
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/karolys_global_warming_wetter_drier_worse_better_whatever/
“Franks was interviewed by the ABC’s PM program, as was Karoly, on the alleged affect of man-made warming on the floods. The alarmist’s opinion was broadcast, and the expert’s was not.”
Regards
Helen Armstrong
“Helen Armstrong says:
January 13, 2011 at 11:34 pm”
That is a shocking reply and I wonder what physical facts he’s talking about? Surely something else other than those generated in computer models? Also, if he is stating that the 2010 Queensland floods are proof of AGW, as a direct result of emissions of CO2 by humans, and worse is still to come, then there must have been more AGW in 1840, 1890 and 1910.
I see Lazy Twonks hanging around here trolling as usual, all hot air no substance, i’d ignore the troll he’s just trying to get a rise out of people. Leave him to it its not his fault the cult has managed to brain wash our Lazy Teenagers by teaching CAGW in our schools. Image after 10 years of being taught CAGW you find out the truth, it must be a shock to the system. All you can do is wait for they to leave adolescence and become an adult.
Don’t feed the trolls. (They’re the ones with all mouth no trousers).
Helen Armstrong says:
January 13, 2011 at 11:34 pm
“I wrote to Dr Trenberth.”
Thanks Helen, but it doesn’t help me decode whether he’s a total whackjob or evil psychopath. Heck, maybe he’s both.
I se I was censored on my comment on calling person that denies climate change on a non-scientific ground for deniers. Du you have a suggestion on how to adress the group that spread false information supporing their denial of climate change?
[Reply: Scientific skeptics is an acceptable term for those you disagree with. ~dbs, mod.]
Great article from Prof Trenberth. Thanks for posting it.
@ur momisugly Helen Armstrong. Prof Trenberth makes a good point.
Regarding says:
January 13, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Jumbo says
———
Over a decade of flat temps does nothing to prick their curiosity about the validity of AGW. Add 10 years of cooling and they still won’t budge.
——–
so what is your favorite temperature data set Jimbo? The ones I have seen all show warming.
Lazy, he is showing a decade, actually 12 years of flat temperature, yes the top of a curve is higher then the preceeding part, so the trend is up from before the decade, but warming stopped in 1998. This was not predicted by the CAGW advocates.
From this site…http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/kevin-trenberths-weird-opinions-about.html
“Note that the RSS AMSU and UAH AMSU satellite records showed that 2010 was somewhat cooler than 1998 while all the surface records claimed a statistical tie – in the case of GISS, it was a tie with 2005 which is GISS’ warmest year on record. That’s despite the fact that 2010 and 1998 were very similar when it came to the dynamics of the ENSO index throughout the year”
Now, do not be a LAZY teenager, read the post and understand the significance of comparing both ENSO indexs BEFORE responding. REALLY, prove to yourself you can be objective and to many here you are not a troll. Read it and as a thought experiment take the skeptic side and understand the veracity of each point made.
LazyTeenager says:
January 13, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Lazy, reading your splatterings, a classic phrase from then vice-president Dan Quayle comes to mind:
A mind is a terrible thing to lose.
Kevin Trenberth’s talk seems to be a combination of whinging, self-contradiction and hedging to mitigate any future blame for world upheaval in AGW’s name.
It leaves an impression of slight panic that would seem to reinforce the realisation that the CO2- AGW proponents may have been wrong —-the meaning that was
taken by most people from his email statement—–
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
He focuses on the claim that the emails were hacked or stolen, but doesn’t for one minute call for an investigation into that.
He wants a deliberate and explicit boast by Phil Jones , that he [ Jones] and Trenberth are prepared to, and determined to, manipulate the peer-review system to make sure alternative views are not published—— to be seen as just naivety and lack of understanding on Jones’ part.
The real naivety is in his expectation that the world would believe his explanation.
He pleads for three demonstrable whitewashes to be seen as inquiries that provided legitimate vindications of the actions of his colleagues and himself.
He tries to convince his audience that the media is in the tank with the sceptics, when anyone following the issue can see that the diametric opposite is the truth in the US, the UK and most certainly in Australia, where the MSM doesn’t even bother to make a feeble attempt at balance.
‘Amplify the view that there are two sides’ is exactly what the media don’t do.
He whinges that climate scientists can’t win debates with sceptics—but does want debate about policy that takes the certainty of CO2-induced AGW as its premise.
He obsesses that politicians won’t toe their CO2-induced AGW line.
He implies that events that do have [ pre-fossil fuel] precedents in history [ documented in varieties of ways], should now be deemed unlikely to have happened without CO2-induced global warming.
He says global warming is ‘unequivocal’, but then goes on to equivocate, wanting sceptics to accept the burden of proof, and saying that any cooling should actually be accepted as warming, because tempaeratures are ‘still higher than they would have been’—with no explanation about his evidence for that.
He advocates promoting the policies of a carbon price, carbon taxes, offsets and a cap and trade scheme to the public—-says ‘decarbonising the economy is very important’—- but in the next breath says those policies are short-sighted.
He raises over-population, but offers no suggestions for solutions.
The hedging and cover seems to be in his almost complete avoidance of linking CO2 with the ‘global warming’, ‘human influence’[ knowing ‘human influence’ covers land use changes, deforestation, burning of wood etc—many things that humans did before industrialisation and CO2]
It’s also in his talk of instead ‘slowing the pace of climate change’ and ‘work to reduce emissions’, and ‘plan for and adapt to the change’, and ‘we should be more accepting that climate disasters are inevitable’——–which doesn’t exactly fit with the very alarmist nature of his colleagues’ pronouncements, and some of his own .
It’s almost as if Trenberth knows that the whole house of cards is shaky—maybe about to collapse—-and he doesn’t want to be blamed for the fall of realist governments that call for all sides to be heard—-for livelihoods lost—-for industries decimated—-for energy shortages and disruptions that may cost lives—-for destruction of economies—for more third world poverty and for unprecedented and irreversible global political and economic upheaval.
If you can prove they knowingly spread false information, you can call them liars. But you have to prove that #1 – the information is false, and #2 – they knew it to be false.
However not having done either, why do you want to denigrate the opposition that you merely disagree with? Would it not be better to engage and debate the information you feel is incorrect pointing out the errors and offering corrections?
Merely labeling those you do not agree with using a derogatory label indicates not only laziness on your part, but an insecurity in your own position.