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.
Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been…
I won’t say that you can’t make this claim. You can’t make this claim unless you know what they would have been. How about it? A complete historical record of what temperature would have been without CO2. Also to paraphrase from Princess Bride. Inconceivable!
Was my comment eaten by the spam filter? I don’t see it in queue. Thanks.
“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.”
=======================================================
Well Kevin, it says what it says………………………………….
Ok, now I see it. I tried refreshing the page before asking about the spam filter, but it popped up when I posted another comment. Oh well! 🙂
Oh, and I think Trenberth should also share the formula he uses to show what temperatures would have been. It will be very handy.
You must not point out observations as the are not scientific “facts” as Tenberth might say.
2010
Inconvenient hurricane facts
Global Tropical Cyclone activity is at 33-year lows
Global tropical cyclone activity still in the tank
Remember that we have just been through the “hottest decade on the record” and 2010 was one of the “hottest years” evahhhhh. How do the warmists behave towards the evidence. Bury head in sand and say no, no, no. Yet they call us nasty names like ‘deniers’.
Why make such a fuss about Kevin Trenberth’s speech?
One famous climate skeptic, Richard Lindzen, says he likes to be called ‘climate denier’: http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/10/bbc-interviews-nobel-prize-winner.html
The Cult of AGW is so pervasive that a man who claims to be a scientist thinks nothing of abandoning the scientific method and donning the vestments of a pseudo-priest. It is very clear that science (all fields) is under assault and risks total corruption by entrenched government employees such as Trenbirth and Hansen and special interests. Sack them all. Any “scientific” society that does not call out his unscientific approach is bankrupt.
Mike Haseler says:
January 13, 2011 at 3:42 am
“Scientists don’t make mistakes. They make testable hypothesis which they then subject to test. It is not a mistake if they are wrong, because science is based on the belief that all assertions could be found to be wrong when or if the right experimental conditions were created.”
That sounds right. Scientists don’t make mistakes. That’s why we have engineers. Engineers make mistakes and engineers are held accountable for their mistakes. Scientists don’t make mistakes and absent mistakes there’s no blame and no accountability. Scientists are divorced from accountability and responsibility.
This is actually sad.
Trenberth writes:
He says this has to now be abandoned because:
This is such a fundamental error it is embarrasing to even point out.
That the ‘globe is warming’ cannot become ‘proof’ that humans are doing it!
Ooh – his lips are moving! That can mean but one thing.
If his view is the norm for what science seeks to become then my will needs to be re-written to exclude science as a beneficiary.
Trenberth has shown himself here to be a bigoted fundamentalist. I had some respect for him once, but no more. He clearly knows very little about the history of science and philosophy, the philosophy of science, epistemology, scientific methods, what scientific knowledge is and how it can be known, what the object of scientific investigation is etc etc.
No wonder science – and climate science in particular – are in a mess.
“Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.” Quite, so, because Trenberth doesn’t know what science is. He would not stand a chance as soon as his presuppositions, biases and ignorance were exposed for all to see.
“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. ” Quite so, like the loudly proclaimed statements that often have little or no basis made by climate scientists.
“Scientific facts are not open to debate and opinion because they are evidence and/or physically based. ” None but cranks tend to dispute clear evidence; but those that are clearly open to dispute can’t be called ‘scientific facts’ and nearly always are opinions, and must be open to debate. This is a trick used for centuries to close down debate on controversial matters.
“a debate actually gives alternative views credibility”. Usual complaint of extreme fundamentalists.
” 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.”
Or… Heads I win, tails you lose.
“R. de Haan says:
January 13, 2011 at 5:27 am
NOAA, 1998 temperature 1.3 degrees warmer than 2010. U.S. cooling at a 0.94 degree per century rate. And don’t you deny it!
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/01/noaa-reports-that-1998-temperature-was-13-degrees-warmer-than-2010-us-cooling-at-94-per-century-rate.html”
I did not see anyone remarking on this. I entered the figures in Noaa’s boxes here
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
and got the same result. Try yourself. This is what I got (straight quote)
“Annual 1998 – 2010 Average = 54.13 degF
Annual 1998 – 2010 Trend = -0.94 degF / Decade ”
This should be more widely publicised. Perhaps something for Anthony Watts to write about.
Trenberth’s speech is a prime example of the disingenuos and misleading pronouncements of the climate establishment.The whole argument is based on the acceptance of the statement :
” that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report”
and the implication that this was true then and is still true today. What does the data show?
Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans and the lack of any UHI effect the best indicator of recent trends is the Hadley – CRU Sea Surface Temperature data. The 5 year moving average shows the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows a global cooling trend since then . The data shows warming from 1900- 1940 ,cooling from 1940 – about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period. It is clear that the IPCC models have been wrongly framed. Humidity, and natural CO2 levels are solar feedback effects not prime drivers. Anthropogenic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot even estimate what the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is. This is in fact what the science section ( as opposed to the political Summary for Policy Makers ) of the AR4 report says.
The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models itself concludes:
“Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”
What could be clearer. The IPCC itself says that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the “plausible” models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given “with high confidence.” in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed.
Clearly the correct procedure should be to estimate the natural variability and then see what effect human activity has rather than vice versa.
Statistical analysis is not knowledge. All time series can be cherry picked ,and statistically manipulated to provide nice looking slides for illustrative purposes. They make convey no useful information unless the context and their construction procedures are known.
Since 2003 CO2 has risen and the global temperature trend is negative. This is obviously a short term on which to base predictions but in the context of declining solar activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the PDO and AO a global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend.
Trenberth’s statement “Given that global warming is happening and is pervasive” is not a “given ” at all and is simply untrue.
“Even if temperatures or sea surface temperatures are below normal, they are still higher than they would have been… ”
… if the earth had never escaped the savagery of the last ice age?
Damn those Mammoths! They must have driven some HUGE 4x4s.
“I’d like to ask Mr. Trenberth about what happened to all those hurricanes he told the public, back in 2005, that were supposed to be increasing (due to climate change) but that we haven’t seen? Where did they disappear to Mr. Trenberth? ”
It is a tragedy that we cannot account for them.
Tremberth says:-
“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed…….”
He defines what he means by “null hypothesis” here:-
“Prior to the 2007 IPCC report, it was appropriate for the null hypothesis to be that “there is no human influence on climate” ”
He is therefore making the claim that IPCC AR4 said that human influenced climate change is unequivocal.
But it didn’t!
When the UN issued a first draft of the proceedings of the Cancun Conference they made the same incorrect claim, saying:-
3. Recognizes that warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal, as assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change in its Fourth Assessment Report;
Perhaps surprisingly, no lesser person than the NYT’s Andrew Revkin pointed out the mistake to Pachouri – who apologised and had the wording changed.
Revkin noted:-
[Dec. 5, 10:35 a.m. | Updated Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chariman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has confirmed the small error in the draft described below. On Sunday morning, he told me he was contacting relevant officials about “the need for correcting the wording that the statement uses.”]
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/a-draft-shared-vision-on-climate-with-a-glitch/
All that IPCC AR4 ever said was
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level
Qualified by:-
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
So, as far as I can see, “Lord of All Creation” Tremberth is misrepresenting what IPCC AR4 said and owes the AMS and its members a big apology.
Don’t waste time communicating with Trenberth or the AMS. They stopped making sense long ago. Those of us in the USA should send a copy of his remarks to our appropriate House member with a note urging that Mr. Trenberth be invited to testify under oath before a House committee. He could explain how a public employee like himself holds such views and defend them in a setting where he could not equivocate. The new majority in the House is eager to find ways to stop wasteful spending. I can’t think of a better place to look than NCAR.
O.k I forced myself to read all of this dreck in detail and I can safely say after 35 years as a practicing scientist I’ve never heard anything so disingenuous from another scientist. Just to mislead, he starts off by saying global warming is “unequivocal”, which nobody disputes, but makes it clear throughout that what he means is that CO2-caused climate disaster is unequivocal.
He then goes on to call honest scientists names, falsely represents their positions, tries to explain away wrong doing, makes unsubstaniated claims about how the climategate e-mails were released, blames certain e-mail statements about peer review on a colleague, blames everyone else in sight because his vested interest is not roundly supported by the rest of humanity despite it’s lavish funding, makes wild-eyed claims about human population, an issue which he has clearly not given more than 5 seconds of thought and which he will only suceed in agravating, acusses the rest of us of being corrupted and then tries to promote himself as a moderate voice of reason.
I don’t have another second for this guy. He is the acme of unprofessional and I won’t waste 1 Hz of bandwidth e-mailing him any suggested improvement for his talk.
Well, quite. You can talk until you’re blue in the face…………..
I would also like to point out that, in assessing corporate governance, one of the best practices is to note the culture of the top management. Many people blamed the culture Ken Lay and Jefferey Skilling created for the downfall of the company. If you have ever seen ‘The Smartest Guys in the Room’, you’ll remember the section titled ‘Ask Why, Asshole’. It involves a phone call where an investor asked why the cash flow and earnings statements never come out at the same time, and why they are the only company that can’t put them out together. Skilling calls him an asshole over the phone, and the floor traders made a sign with Enron’s logo and slogan on it ‘Ask Why’ but penciled in the word ‘Asshole’ because they thought it was great that the then CEO was calling an investor an asshole. He also starred in a corporate video shortly after they got mark to market accounting taunting the veracity of the standard by pretending they were going to use ‘Hypothetical Future Value’ accounting. Or in other words, just make the numbers up.
Now, I know there are many that do personally attack the scientists, but it isn’t as pervasive and personal as someone showing up at Anthony’s house (or was it place of business?). More often you will see the word denier thrown about by leaders and followers alike. The bunker mentality of these scientists is clearly on display in these emails and now in their public speeches, and there is no surprise that they continue to take the skepticism towards their work as personal attacks. What is the ‘tone at the top’ of the AGW science foundation? This is no small matter, either. Businesses across the country are evaluated on these things on the off chance that comparatively few investors lose money. Who are the investors (willing and unwilling) in AGW? Why do we not deserve the same level of accountability that is demanded of our publicly traded companies? Don’t we have the right to have figures that must be taken on trust, in which we all have enormous stake, audited by skeptical and independent (in fact and appearance) third parties?
I am not accusing them of fraud, I just think they are wrong. But when you have an extremely complicated mathematical process that involves a good deal of statistical sausage making to crank out a number that is supposed to be pretty easy to understand, I do get the Enron signal that more people should ‘Ask Why, Asshole’.
“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.”
So even allowing for the nonsense that is: “Given that global warming is “unequivocal”,” by reversing an extreme Null Hypothesis he is seeking to force realists to prove a negative, which theoretically is impossible.
He should prove that mankind has been responsible for the earth’s unprecedented warming, and seeing that it has not been proven that the earth’s warming is unprecedented, then there is no way to prove that mankind is responsible for all, or even, most of it.
The Alarmists have still failed to prove it! They cannot prove it, so they are asking realists to prove a negative in response.
This is deeply dishonest and shows that the Alarmists cannot be trusted.
Remember this from last week?
The ARGO buoys show deep ocean cooling — and Trenberth responds in his usual manner.
Well, I was really going to try and politely but firmly bring up some serious questions and points regarding the topics he wrote in an e-mail. I can’t. I’ve started 3 different times and each time I couldn’t contain my acrimonious bewilderment. It either comes across dripping with sarcasm with an underlying loathing, or blatant outrage. I could no more seriously engage this person on climate change issues than I could Nancy Pelosi if she were dressed in a Bozo the clown outfit. Maybe someone else can engage this person, but I’m going to have to be content with ridiculing and scorning.
*******
Ulick Stafford says:
January 13, 2011 at 5:13 am
When you look through the whole meeting program it is easy to understand why climate change goes on and on. The meterology profession seems to be dependent on the topic for research dollars. There are so many papers on the subject – not just the so-called effects of climate change but also communication. This paper is from the second session on Communicating Climate Change. I notice Vicky Pope and David Karoly are also presenting on the subject.
******
Some U.S. audits of federal “Climate-change” funds show that about 80% went to “media” and “communication” activities. A mere 20% went to everything else.
IOW, U.S. public tax money meant for “AGW research” is mostly spent on newly-created & existing, “bought” media corps, not for actual research.
We in the US must now be proud to have the best-paid & most extensive media-propaganda machine in the world, all backed by Science! Just ask Kevin Trenberth.