Well that’s what I get for taking a nap today. I had been checking Dr. Trenberth’s manuscript regularly at the AMS website, and of course while napping he (or somebody) changed it. Of course Steve McIntyre caught it and points out the changes. Good for him.
For those that wish to examine the original, I saved it here.
And now here’s some of the changes that Steve McIntyre points out:
==============================================================
Steve writes:
This post has obviously been brought to Trenberth and/or AMS’s attention, as they have deleted the original version of Trenberth’s presentation and replaced it with an amended version, without a change notice.
The amended version picks up most of the problems raised in the previous CA post. Here are the points raised in the CA post and Trenberth’s changes:
Trenberth originally stated:
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 amended version:
Hasselmann (2010) further notes that 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.
Trenberth’s originally statement about tactics to use against “deniers”:
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.
The amended version:
It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers (Hasselmann 2010). Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.
He fixes things that would likely get him in trouble, but leaves the insults.
Steve writes:
Trenberth did not submit a comment to Climate Audit thanking us for enabling him to mitigate the problem prior to the actual formal presentation of his speech or otherwise thank us at the AMS webpage at which the changes were made.
=================================================================
Are you honest enough to thank a person who helped you, Dr. Trenberth?
Read all about it here over at Climate Audit here
Be sure to thank Steve McIntyre. I’ll lead by saying it first:
Dr, Trenberth owes Mr. McIntyre a debt of gratitude for heading off an embarrassing and potentially troublesome academic inquiry. The very least he could do is leave a comment at Climate Audit.
In my opinion if Dr. Trenbert values the public interpretation of his integrity, and that of the AMS, he should drop the offensive term “deniers” and replace it with the word “skeptics”. It is as easy as doing “search and replace” in Microsoft word. 10 seconds of work:
Dr. Trenberth, please see below how easy it is to do in a word processor.
Since Dr. Trenberth put his own email address out there in his original document made public on the AMS website,
ClimategateThoughts4AMS_v2 (PDF)
*Corresponding author: Kevin E Trenberth, NCAR, PO Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80303.
Email: trenbert@ucar.edu
…and because he is a paid public servant of the United States, I ask that any Americans who are offended at his continued use of this term after issues have been brought to his attention, email him at the address provided, and ask him politely to make this simple change.
IMHO there’s no academic freedom when it comes to name calling. He knows what the right thing to do is, let’s just make sure he listens to himself.
– Anthony Watts
So Trenberth’s solution to stating the ridiculous about how to defend a position in science is to attribute what he’s saying to someone else in some other paper?
Bravo, Mr politician, Bravo. Like the true IPCC alumni you are Mr Trenberth, you simply shifted the burden of failure to someone else. So why should anyone listen to what you have to say?
‘Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.’
Well he has that right. As soon as there’s a mention of the non-existant atmospheric hot-spot, the science of AGW self-detructs.
Hear, hear.
damn Ryan, you rock.
Let’s see, Dr. T., with your idea about flipping the null hypothesis, the terminology would be “reject” not “deny”.
“I will be on travel in Europe until 19 January 2011. [Bern ISSE 9-14; Grenoble ECRA 15-18] I will have only limited access to email.”
However, he does have sufficient access to amend his manuscript, apparently.
Trenberth is a bad guy. No one should be surprised by anything that this consummate liar does or says.
He keeps digging the hole deeper and deeper. He will be buried when it all collapses. I look forward to that day.
John Kehr
The Inconvenient Skeptic
“It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers (Hasselmann 2010). Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.”
In other words, because there is no science supporting the contention that anthropogenic CO2 is changing the climate, or otherwise bad; climate scientists must use non scientific arguments against those who point out this failing.
Not very novel, Kevin, but it gets more than a little annoying when you start inciting lynch mobs..
I agree, John. We are responsible for our actions under the influence of drugs and alcohol so the excuse that these people are simply caught up in some psychological effect of constantly being around those that think like they do is hogwash. Adults know this sort of behavior is wrong, they should pay the price when the time comes.
Mark
I sent this mail – I kept it polite even though I would have liked to use some other words!
************
Dr Trenberth,
Please, if you really want to be taken seriously, can you amend your vocabulary on future documents so that fellow scientists and colleagues can still have some semblance of respect for each other. As you point out quite eloquently, debate is indeed healthy and if you continue to lose the moral highground even your most loyal followers may start to feel uneasy.
Just so you know, I am an open mined maths graduate who follows weather related media material closely and I really feel that both camps have some solid scientific literature in the field. Please don’t succumb to frustration – let your science do the talking for you.
Best regards
Andrew Holder
BSc Mathematics Graduate
Amateur weather enthusiast.
********
“Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.”
I agree. We are well past that point now.
I propose we move directly to criminal and civil lawsuits and indictments on whatever appropriate laws and basis are available. I suggest misappropriation of federal funds, failure to comply with lawful FOI requests, fraud, conspiracy and racketeering, and any others that come to mind. These crooks NEED to spend some time behind bars getting cavity searched instead of spewing vacuous theories of Armageddon.
There are those who say let the scientific interplay decide this. I disagree. My pockets have been picked for too long and I am fed up. Twenty years of hyperbole and alarmism without any reliable proof is WAY too long. It is past time to make these bad boys cry for their mommies and let the grownups try to restore the science to something approaching respectability again.
Come on all you lawyers – step up to the plate and do your duty to science and man.
Sue their posteriors.
In the movie the Princess Bride
Vizzini: HE DIDN’T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Substitute Trenberth for Vizzini, Lord Monckton for Inigo Montoya and unequivocal for Inconceivable and we’ve got ourselves a movie!
Watts Up With That Rocks in the Crowd Sourcing World! Hands Down!
“It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers (Hasselmann 2010).”
So. To justify his continuing use of the term “deniers” as a ‘scientist,’ he cites Hasselmann as his reference, as though that means anything. He didn’t directly quote him using that word. Did Hasselmann’s research demand its use?
But it does seems fitting that someone named Hasselmann supports the use of this term which effectively hassles the skeptics.
How about this? Trenberth is a %*#k@ur momisugly$g weasel (Angermann 2012).
I wonder why the AMS didn’t just get Hasselmann to deliver the speech. He seems to have written most of it.
McIntyre should have kept quiet about the copying issues until after Trenberth’s speech. ;O) As for the term ‘deniers’ it may become clear over the next few years which group is living in denial. The term smacks of Lysenkoism. There are number of sceptics who have brought forward strong arguments against AGW and yet they are referred to as ‘deniers’.
Here are a few examples of why sceptics must persist despite the insults.
————–
June 4, 1999
“Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990604081638.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399452a0.html
Nov. 17, 2010
“Global Warming Could Cool Down Northern Temperatures in Winter”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117114028.htm
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013568
————–
“…(CO2) in the atmosphere will slow the Earth’s rotation.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1816860.stm
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002…/2001GL013672.shtml
“Global warming will make Earth spin faster”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11555
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/staff/landererfelix/landerer_07_GRL.pdf
———–
“…much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty…”
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_fresh_water.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5729/1772.abstract
“The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier,…”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12528
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030126.shtml
———–
Avalanches may increase
http://www.taiga.net/nce/schools/lessonplans/snowstudy_impacts.html
Avalanches may reduce
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2001/00000032/00000001/art00029;jsessionid=27gjw6f50jw2.alice
———–
“Declining Coral Calcification on the Great Barrier Reef”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5910/116.abstract
“Doom and Boom on a Resilient Reef”
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005239
———–
Yet he changed his speech after, I assume, reading about his copying issues from the so called ‘denier’ blogs. I hope Trenberth reads this:
Have you ever thought about if you are wrong about AGW? What if we enter a prolonged cooling trend lasting 20 years or more how foolish are you going to feel? Where will your career be then? Think about it and be more like Judith Curry – a believer who is not frightened of debate.
Ol’ Kevin is stirring the pot
To hide the heat inside that is not.
Don’t play his games
By reacting to names
Ask him to show what he’s got!
Jimmy Haigh says:
January 16, 2011 at 9:02 pm
So Trenberth’s getting more air miles on another jaunt to Europe. More CO2 needlessly pumped into the atmosphere… Don’t these guys have any conscience?
whether they have a concience is another debate, what this shows is he doesn’t believe his own rhetoric.
What this evangelical crusade by Trenberth really marks is the attempt by a group of postmodernist “scientists” to take over science and mould it to their own political ends (i.e. left wing, anti-nuclear, environmentalist & Marxist !). The key thing about postmodernist “scientists” are that like Trenberth and his rejection of the Null Hypothesis, they doesn’t accept the fundamentals of science like the scientific method and instead they think science can be based on subjective criteria a bit like political/environmental studies.
For anyone interested I urge you to read the following article (assuming it hasn’t been got at in the meantime by the “team”)
“The science wars were [ARE] a series of intellectual battles in the 1990s, between scientific realists and postmodernist critics, about the nature of scientific theory. The postmodernists questioned scientific objectivity, and undertook a wide-ranging critique of the scientific method and of scientific knowledge,…The scientific realists countered that objective scientific knowledge is real, and accused postmodernist critics of having little understanding of the science they were criticising.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars
One of the best apologies is from “A Fish Called Wanda”, in this trailer at about 57 seconds. Best in the full movie.
http://www.alltrailers.net/a-fish-called-wanda.html
Mockery is something the petty minded can not deal with and is so much better than violent overthrow. Sent this.
Dear Dr Trenberth,
Describing those with whom you disagree as “deniers” is counterproductive to your warming cause. I would so much more prefer the term “flat earther,” mainly on the grounds that I personally do not enjoy struggling up steep hills, even if it is to escape the inevitable 500m rise in sea level.
Yours sincerely,
XXXXXXXXX
David Chappell says:
January 16, 2011 at 10:43 pm
“I will be on travel in Europe until 19 January 2011. [Bern ISSE 9-14; Grenoble ECRA 15-18] I will have only limited access to email.”
However, he does have sufficient access to amend his manuscript, apparently.”
I agree. That’s BS. These guys have email access 24/7 (except for short periods of time while in the air, going through security, etc.) otherwise they constantly check in. It’s a dodge tactic.
Al Gored says:
January 16, 2011 at 11:50 pm
“It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers (Hasselmann 2010).”
So. To justify his continuing use of the term “deniers” as a ‘scientist,’ he cites Hasselmann as his reference, as though that means anything. He didn’t directly quote him using that word. Did Hasselmann’s research demand its use?”
This struck me as well. Apparently it’s okay to continue to propagate offensive and inappropriate words by a simple general reference to someone else. And at the same time society feels it’s necessary to change a certain word in Mark Twain’s fiction.
Since Dr. Trenberth’s talk is about communicating with the public, I wrote to him mentioning how effective events like Pachauri’s defense of the 2035 “mistake” was (God hath no rath like a woman scorned), or the current MET scandal is at creating long-term skeptics. (he agreed about Pachauri, didn’t know about the MET issue)
On the issue of deniars, I said:
“Finally, you should be careful about how you use the term denier. While
there are certainly people out there who have an anti-science agenda, it
would be better for you to address them specifically and call out their
lies so all could see and understand your concerns. You must also
recognize that there are millions of smart, educated scientists,
professional and amateur, who are just questioning the research in an
attempt to parse out the truth, in the best sense of the scientific
method. For you to lump all these people together under the term denier
smacks of McCarthyism and does not endear yourself to a large group of
potential supporters.”
He replied:
“I don’t. Scientists in general are skeptical, but deniers do not even
accept basic ‘facts’ such as the observed increased in CO2 and that humans
are responsible.”
He still doesn’t get the communication issue. By his definition, deniers would be the equivalent of flat-earthers at an orbital mechanics conference – not even worth paying attention to. But his continued use of the term further alienates the informed public and leads us away from a rational debate on the science.