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
This is a small but meaningful victory. If you can get evil people to “third-party” their remarks, their influence is diminished. For instance, imagine Marx writing:
“Workers of the world, Herr Engels[1845] recommends that you arise! You have nothing to lose but your chains, according to Herr Engels[1845].”
Trenberth will have to do more, however, to replace Hansen as the Lysenko of climate science.
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. Please contact my admin asst, Lisa Butler (lbutler@ucar.edu) or x 1366for further information or if this involves travel.Your mail regarding “xxx” will be read when I return.RegardsKevin
AH, the old don’t do as we do,do as we say trick.Nice to see you’re very worried(NOT) about your carbon foot print.
Have you not heard that the globe is susposed to be warming due to Co2 pollution!!
Now we know where all that grant money go’s.No doubt first class seating,and a five star hotel waiting.
“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.”
Others have commented on this; I personally find this statement almost unbelievable.
As a sleek politician, Al Gore understands the importance of avoiding any personal debate if you are spouting BS. However, this guy is supposed to be a scientist – he obviously knows he can’t justify his BS theories on AGW, therefore he knows it is important not to debate them with anyone who has any real knowledge of science or statistics.
Unfortunately for ‘climate scientists’, sceptics/deniers generally know much more about real climate science than the lumpen proletariat which make up the majority of the AGW cult faithful.
Only governments would dream of paying people like this: people who are too afraid of their lies being exposed in a debate on their unfounded scaremongering and climate fantasy tales.
And meanwhile . . . . Dr Hansen calculates how much he has to add warmth to areas where is no witnesses. Because earth is cooling rapidly and continues to cool down next 35 – 75 years. I’m tired to hear bullshit politics.
Cool. The gauntlet of Truth has been summarily slapped on this guy’s cheek. I’m actually interested what he’ll be doing next…
It’s midnight over here and I may as well send the ‘good doctor’ a short note ~
considering all the ‘rants’ you guys have put up with over the past few months… I’ve
decided to ‘take my own medicine’ (for I’ve been forever asking any of you to ‘make a stand’…and I’m in that group as well…) and send him a short but sweet note asking just ‘what in the world’ deniers, in fact – are. In ‘s’cientific jargon…of course.
I like fishing anyway… and this past weekend, only caught a stingray…geez…they’re weirdly ugly lil’ critters… Well, I’ll grab another mug of Anthony’s and ‘sip’ some Baily’s and coffee, while I type…
Puttin’ the kettle on the boil…
C.L. Thorpe
Toto says:
January 16, 2011 at 10:14 pm
So, we would then be called “rejectors”–that’s a term I can live with. It should make Trenberth see vivid red.
When Trenberth suggests avoiding discussions of the actual science with people who disagree with him, my mind’s eye sees a 4 year old with his fingers stuck in his ears screaming “I’m not listening” at the top of his lungs. Is that how you want people to think of you, Dr. Trenberth–as a 4 year old having a temper tantrum?
Trenberth really means ‘deniers’. Not ‘skeptics’. Quite clear, methinks.
He is apparently able to write himself, too, and needs no ghostwriting.
[snip. Violates site Policy by calling others “deniers,” and other derogatory terms. ~dbs, mod.]
Sorry, but a plagiaristically bent hothead will not be amenable to further changes in rhetoric. He is likely seething that he got caught engaging in gradeschool tactics and is not open to further suggestions.
In my world, this incident would result in suspension. That the stolen words were so obvious speaks of a lack of scruples, not a “mistake -my bad”. Paper grade “F”, end of term “Flunk”. Now go sit at the front of the class with the “dunce cap” firmly in place.
The President’s latest Executive Order (Civility for a Brighter Tomorrow) has only been in effect a few days and here the first to break it will be Trenberth and the AMS? This is a dark, cold day for all Americans.
John Brookes says:
January 17, 2011 at 7:11 am
You said a lot. I stuck with it just waiting for the other boot to drop. And what a clunker it was!
You said, in closing: ‘…but I really only formed a strong opinion on the AGW side after reading Al Gore’s book. I had no idea that so much work had been done.’
And then you have the gall to accuse us of being a ‘…loosely linked confederacy of the genuinely curious, ignorami and deniers.’
Forgive me. You read Al Gore and believed it? To the extent that you are not a confederate? I wonder sometimes how you even managed not to fall into the class of ‘ignorami’ yourself. I have read some daft posts by trolls (mainly in the Daily Telegraph – and usually when trying to rip into Chris Booker), but this one is brilliant.
I really suggest you go away and acquaint yourself with Eschenbach, Carter, or Monckton. All people that Gore will not debate.
Sheesh!
Anthony, I understand your desire to end the vitriolic rhetoric, but they aren’t capable. More, I don’t wish them to come up with another derisive code name for skeptics. I wish it to stand for the rest of the world to see.
In the arena of ideas and discovery, alarmists are reduced to name calling. If Trenberth wishes to display his intellectual bankruptcy, so be it. While I also find it deplorable that anyone in science or academia would recommend avoiding debate, it is mildly amusing. Don’t talk to those people!!!! They are full of radical thoughts and ideas! Thoughts such as these should be prominently displayed, every day, along with things such as the 10:10 video, the temp adjustments, the thermometers residing by charcoal grills, the quotes of the melting Himalayas in the IPCC, the predictions of eminent doom that haven’t occurred, yet are beyond the predicted time, such as Manhattan being underwater and so on….
What I’m saying is, the likes of Trenberth and the thoughts he’s expressed is, or rather should be, emblematic of what we are struggling against. Trenberth should be a poster child of what is wrong with climatology today. He can hardly be emblematic if you go around cleaning up his messes for him. Let his words and works stand and let the world judge who is more credible, a second fiddle climatologist that is afraid to engage people skeptical of his “science” and is reduced to pejorative rhetoric or someone that preaches transparency and will openly engage people with differences of opinion.
Just my 2 cents.
James
Two comments:
One, I believe it would be prudent to wait until someone, in this case Trenberth, actually makes foolish statements rather than comment on a proposed statement. Give him “enough rope” rather than take it away from him.
Two, the Petition Project statement:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in th foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
(Source: http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php)
sure sounds more like a scientific based position statement than any sort of “denialism”.
On the other hand, maybe we should be calling ardent supporters of CAGW either fear mongerers or scaremongerers both of which may be more than correct descriptors.
Just some observations.
@ur momisugly Al Gored and David L
Trenberth cites Hasselmann 2010 as if that paper endorses the term denier, but in fact that paper uses the term ‘interest groups’. The man is a recalcitrant bigot.
Eduardo Zorita called for the IPCC to exclude CRU scientists involved in Climategate from any future role in IPCC assessment reports. Kevin Trenberth has likewise disqualified himself from any future role by showing he is unable to objectively assess scientific papers which reach conclusions he does not like. Will the IPCC listen? Or will the IPCC continue down a road showing themselves to be unable to be objective?
I suspect that he won’t change his use of “denier.” To go from denier to skeptic is a step back from the proposition that global warming and its human cause is unequivocal—it allows that there might be legitimate questions among some. If there are legitimate questions, naturally, that brings debate back into the picture and the whole null hypothesis shell game looks a little….I don’t know, premature? Silly? Dishonest?
Denier is a deliberate choice and outraged emails to Trenberth are unlikely to change his mind. The term Climate Denier undermines the standing of all who disagree with Trenberth…for people of his ilk, it places global warming opposition side by side in a display case with holocaust deniers and moon landing crazies. Logically, if everyone who opposes Trenberth and AGW is a denier, and all deniers are nutters, then….
I suppose that if you cast all opposition to global warming and its anthropogenic as lunacy-based, then all that remains is unequivocal support. I suggest that emails to his boss might be more effective.
When a learned man like Dr. Trenbreth stands in front of an official scientific body and uses a derogatory slang term like ‘deniers’ to describe others who question the validity of a theory it does great harm to science as a whole and him in particular.
In my company we have a question that helps sort out strategy and tactics, ‘are we playing to win or playing not to lose?’
It certainly appears Trenbreth is playing not to lose. His tactics suggest a bit of desperation in resorting to decidedly non-scientific methods of attacking the messengers of a story he really doesn’t want told. This is so anti-science it will offend many, even if they believe the AGW story. Let Trenbreth sail forward with the ‘denier’ label, he harms himself more than he hurts skeptics.
“Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.”
This statement defies belief. The science is central to the debate and yet it’s the arena people like Trenbreth, Gore et al refuse to enter. Instead they employ demagoguery relying on psychology, sociology, public relations and political science as pitiful substitutes for the facts and data hard science demands.
There’s an evolution to the forced imposition of AGW theory as fact and it’s worth exploring.
First they tried science and the skeptics beat them at their game.
Then they tried consensus and the skeptics beat them at their game.
And then they attacked the skeptics and they beat themselves at their game.
Peter Miller says:
January 17, 2011 at 5:13 am
… As a sleek politician, Al Gore …
I would argue that Al would be better characterized as “slick” politician (not in the Big Oil sense, of course), as the term “sleek” has probably not applied to him since before he invented the Internet.
@John Brookes
The simple difference is that my (or anyone else’s) “opinion on whether the universe is open or closed, whether its dominated by dark energy or dark matter … … [or] that gravity works differently to what we thought” will not end up costing trillions of dollars (to which I have made a small contribution) for no benefit.
Although I must admit that putting a rational point to anyone convinced by Al Gore’s ‘science’ is likely prove fruitless.
The title of the presentation is:
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
If the good Dr feels the best way to Communicate Climate Science is to hurl insults, let him. It will be very effective Communication, just not the variety the AMS was likely looking for. And a very strange way for a senior government official to behave in a very public setting, but there have been a rash of senior federal officeholders talking trash in the last year or two. And if the AMS insists on letting him do it, it will also reflect on them as an implicit endorsement of his insult.
Maybe there will be an adult in the room who calls him on it, but I rather doubt it.
I join Tom t and hereby proclaim that I’m a denier, and proud of it.
Stop this ridiculous and hypersensitive ranting about the word “denier”.
I don’t care what Dr. Trenberth (or anybody else) calls me, I have my well considered opinions and stand by them, no matter what they call me.
@polistra says:
January 17, 2011 at 4:39 am
Brilliant! I was amazed that Trenberth doesn’t have the guts to issue his own thoughts about us revoltin’ deniers, but has – more or less – to regurgitate the writings of somebody I never heard of. That’s really classy.
As the Red Queen would say: Umm, well, in the holy name of civility, maybe I won’t quote her. But then, this irredeemable flop of a “scientist” should be reported to Mr. Obama for a thorough reading out. As if…