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.
Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.
======================================================
Because they keep asking such annoying questions…..
They are doing themselves in anyway, don’t need any help.
When it’s hot, it’s global warming.
When it’s record cold and snow, it’s global warming.
When it drought and floods, it’s global warming.
When it’s more hurricanes, when it’s less hurricanes.
When global temperatures go up, when they go down, when they stay the same……
People have too many things, that are much more important, on their plates right now…
…and this global warming stuff is just looking silly
Buddenbrook is right. Trenberth isn’t crazy, he is an evil man manipulating the system for personal gain. In the very first sentence, Trenberth praises Steven Schneider, who advocated lying to the public to push the CAGW agenda.
It cannot be repeated too often: the CAGW alarmist contingent, of which Trenberth plays a central part, rejectes the scientific method. The scientific method uses the null hypothesis of natural climate variability, within defined past parameters, to test the alternate CAGW hypothesis against. Trenberth says:
“…the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”
This rejection of the scientific method is proposed for one simple reason: climate alarmists like Trenberth cannot show that anything out of the ordinary is occurring. The increase in CO2 has caused no verifiable harm to the planet. In fact, the only definitive result of the rise in CO2 is increased agricultural productivity.
The null hypothesis of natural climate variability falsifies the claim that the rise in a harmless and beneficial trace gas has caused any harm – so Trenberth now wants to jettison the inconvenient scientific method.
If the AMS had integrity, they would allow a response from a skeptical scientist [the only honest kind of scientist, because every scientist should be, first and foremost, a skeptic]. Trenberth rejects skeptical views because he cannot falsify their arguments.
Red Nek Engineer perhaps has the best suggestion: folks can email the AMS Executive Director, Keith Seiter, at: kseitter@ametsoc.org. Be polite but emphatic. Ask him to provide a rebuttal by a credible skeptic, such as Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT. The last thing the AMS wants is to lose credibility by publishing only one side of this contentious issue.
It’s strange how the police have been so silent on the matter. ;O)
Award Trenberth an “F” for his statement. I would point out all his errors, but he’s not worth me wasting my time.
If Trenberth had any scientific evidence to prove his assertions, he would have produced them here. He did not. What we have instead is a bitter rant at everyone involved in questioning his “Global Warming” religion, which was found to be fraudulent when the Climategate emails were published.
Re. Climategate
The point that most people (including Trenberth) miss is that Jones and the CRU had been denying the existence of these emails for years to everybody with a legitimate request to access them. Then all the emails ended up in the public domain, and not only revealed while a bunch of liars Jones and the “Global Warming” worshipers are, but also that the whole CRU team had been cooking the books for years, and pretty much making it up as they went along.
Trenberth must feel very bitter that his every pronouncement is no longer being received by the hushed and overawed ignorant masses with the reverence to which he believes he is somehow entitled, and to which he has grown rather too accustomed.
Trenberth has produced nothing of scientific worth, being the incoherent, inconsistent, illogical ramblings of a mind emptied of any ideas other than of attacking those of superior intellect that have proved that he is wrong and that he has wasted his reputation and his whole working life in the pursuit of a complete lie. Trenberth is clearly unsuited to the disciplines of science, having no capacity for rational scientific debate, contradiction or correction, and should instead consider taking up some established religion or other, as he clearly can only find satisfaction when preaching to the converted.
He says: “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.”
Fine, then release ALL the emails and let us judge if they were “cherry-picked”.
You say “climate change” as if that is something new. Climate has been changing since there was enough atmosphere to have weather. If you mean CO2 caused climate change, then say so.
Do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth? Well, that was “consensus science” at one point in time and it took a “denier” risking his life to say “no it doesn’t” in public.
If you want the public to be more civil and trusting, then release ALL the data, adjustments to that data and source code.
Stephen Schneider’s starting theory was Malthusian via Ehrlich. If you believe such to be the case, you are left with few non-authoritarian/totalitarian options. This is Trenberth’s post normal starting point.
Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming
And given that his radical bias is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all of Trenberth’s statements are affected by AGW hysteria and should not be taken into consideration.
This man feels himself standing with the back against a wall. This is not a speech you’d expect from a scientiest, but an agitator. How bad.
This point made me laugh though: … “While (scientists) statements about climate change are cautious …”
Can somebody remind him of Hansen’s NYC flooding prediction, death trains etc.?
“I smell a rat. A big, fat, commie rat.”
Gen. “Buck” Turgidson (from the movie Dr. Strangelove).
So, let me understand you Trenberth. You, a scientist, are telling other scientists not to debate other human beings about the subject on which you are experts. Your reasons for this are that in a debate, it is impossible to counter lies. I find this interesting since debates are often the best place to catch your opposition in a lie and expose them. You also state that scientific facts are not open to debate, which is an interesting position to take considering if the scientific community felt so strongly in this way, then piltdown man might not have been uncovered as a fraud. Also, you seem to be saying that debate should be shut down because debates give credibility to others that should not have credibility. I would counter that open debate is the best way to expose the truth of what humanity really knows, and single-minded preachy speeches like yours are the best way to remove the light of real intellectual curiosity from the civilized world.
Hi Antony, wondering if you have sent this to Judith Curry as she has a level head, Personally it seems to be more of a sermon than a meeting talk.
Sermon – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A sermon is an oration by a prophet or member of the clergy.
[Or is that “profit or member of clergy”? 8<) Robt]
Spindar activated, Spindar working…
Very good spin. But spin nonetheless. If you have to convince the populous through spin, you don’t have all the facts yet (or you forgot to put them in your brief case), and you run the risk of appearing as a snake oil salesman.
Hey Trenbreth? Wutchasellin’?
******
orkneygal says:
January 13, 2011 at 3:32 am
What an evil speech.
******
Yes. These are the ramblings of a man who is certain he knows what’s best for everyone else (himself & his brethren excluded), considers the masses as mental/moral children to be rightfully punished for their sins, and fully committed & active in forcing it down their throats.
He learned well from the likes of James Hansen.
Trenberth states:
“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.”
I wonder how he can quantify the superiority of the IPCC review process? It seems to me quite a few mistakes crept through, including of course the notorious Himalayan glacier melt claim. This reminds me of ‘educratic’ justification of split-grade classes in elementary school: viz. a classroom is improved by a greater diversity of experience. Never mind that the school teacher has only half the time to dedicate to each grade. “We do not keep any papers out….not all could be included owing to space limitations.” I wonder how those exclusions were decided? I wonder if the Climategate e-mails might not give a clue? Count me totally unconvinced by this sorry apology for Trenberth’s version of science.
Wow what a disgusting and warped piece.
Mr Trenberth, i humbly suggest that were i to come and audit your work i would, given your rantings above that i would find your work, lacking.
The repeated use of the term ‘denier’ not only discredits you as a scientist, but also as a human being. It is one of the lowest tactics that can be used in a political debate.
You also seem blissfully unaware of the scientific process, which is hardly suprising given your position. A shame, as i (indirectly) fund you and your organisation.
In reading and learning from the commentators on WUWT, I take comfort in the knowledge that there will be voices of reason to repair the damage done to science after the religion of CAGW finally collapses in on itself.
Join the Club….and we’ll forget that Global Warming thing:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
What Trenberth produced is a sermon. Trenberth has taken science and manufactured a religion from it. He’s not a scientist he’s a clergyman for a new age cult. It’s enough to make me gag.
If this man was worried about his travesty statement going viral….. how about what is going to happen with his unequivocal null hypothesis reversal speech. This will be quoted forever for what it really is. First rule of holes violated here… in spades.
If you find yourself deep in the mire
And have as your only desire
To be free of the mud
Which surrounds like a flood
Then your spade you should quickly retire.
Don’t keep digging and digging my friend
It’s a law mother nature will send
If you take such tact
You will it’s a fact
Robustly forever descend.
Unequivocal is this great law
No debate is allowed of its flaw
If you keep digging south
With your pen or your mouth
Your hole won’t allow your withdraw.
That is a strawman set up to be demolished. Perhaps some who may properly called “deniers” accept that null hypothesis, but reasonable skeptics accept that human activities are responsible for some of the warming since 1880. The proper questions are: 1) Has there been net warming since 1880? 2) How much? 3) Is moderate warming bad? 4) What, if anything, should we do about it? My answers are: 1) Yes, perhaps 0.5ºC (out of the 0.8ºC supposed warming), 2) About 0.1ºC, 3) Not necessarily, and 4) Not much, since most of the warming is due to natural cycles not subject to human control, but we should make reasonable improvements in energy efficiency and, when reasonable cost-effective, use more nuclear and renewables.
Each of Trenberth’s null hypotheses is too extreme, equivalent to saying the human influence is either all black or all white, when everyone knows it is clearly shades of gray.
The butterfly effect, based on chaos theory, says a small change in some initial condition for a complex system may cause a larger effect later. (A butterfly in Africa flaps its wings a certain way and that causes a hurricane to pass over Florida rather than turn out to sea, or vice-versa.) Yes, AGW, even if it as small as I think it is, may be resposible for some increase (or decrease) in precipitation and storms, and so on. But, when compared to natural cycles, this effect is insignificant. Trenberth’s entire argument is beside the point.
What else can the Alarmists do? They have to keep pressing on. And if it means changing the narrative (more of a PR issue) to “climate extremes” (whatever that means), so be it. In the mean time, climate scientists will continue to pour out pounderous studies, spend taxpayers money, and continue to back-up large public bureaucracies. And as the EPA has shown, modern public bureaucracies by and large operate as a government within a government -beyond the voters consent.
Trenbreth is now just a bureaucrat. And good bureaucrats from time immemorial defend thier turf. Climate Science has now reached the same level as economics. It is highly political (with partisans on each side), very subjective, and is used by the government to push political outcomes.
“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.”
As this is going to appear in the “Joint Presidential Session on Communicating Climate Change,” I assumed that this was a plea for more cash. Even more so if the Met Office are speaking in the same session when we know they want more cash for a “better” computer. Same old story, then!
I am quite happy to call myself a denier, if only to irritate the warmists, but reading the whole of this presentation has brought me out in a rash and I think my blood pressure has probably shot up again. I am sickened by the self-righteous, sanctimonious, belly-aching that I have just read, not least when I think of the amount of time and aggravation that people like Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick and many others have invested in checking out their claims.
When is Anthony’s paper on weather stations coming out? This is surely going to be another thorn in their sides. And not a moment too soon, in my opinion.
It is now obvious that we are watching evolution in action.
Say goodbye to homo sapiens (wise and knowing man) and welcome homo superbus (arrogant man)
They not only walk amongst you, they seek to control you.
Me thinks it is time for a bit of reverse engineering. Now is not the time to let up!
I am surprised he didn’t find the space or opportunity to talk about the Inter Academy Review of the IPCC…
Well, not really.
It might be relevant to this claim that he makes:
However, the Inter Academy reviews seems to think the exact opposite at work in the IPCC…
Our tax dollars pay for this guy? The inmates are running the asylum for real this time. The line about
“Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based”
It’s hard to believe anyone with a college education could actually say that. Its jaw dropping.