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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
John Brookes says:
January 17, 2011 at 7:11 am
Anyway, I may have to call you guys “the confederacy”, as you seem to be a loosely linked confederacy of the genuinely curious, ignorami and deniers.
======================================================
The plural of ignoramus is ignoramuses.
The form “ignorami” is a pseudo-learned blunder, since in Latin ignoramus is a verb and not one of the Latin nouns ending in ‘us’.
Dr. Trenberth wrote back to my inquiry with this reasonable, though brief, reply:
My talk is in over a week. The posted talk was always preliminary and was
not “published”. As I prepare the actual presentation I have made some
revisions. I had no knowledge that the written version would even be
posted before the talk.
Kevin Trenberth
I also received this from an AMS official:
Thank you for your message. I am out of the office until Tuesday morning 18 January. AMS is closed for the Martin Luther King Holiday on Monday the 17th. For urgent messages on Friday the 14th please contact Brian Papa (@ametsoc.org) or Dr. Mike Friedman (@ametsoc.org) I will respond to your message upon my return.
Ken
Ken Heideman
AMS Director of Publications
The AMS contact page has many contacts with e-mail and phone. I trust we can all remain polite.
I notice that while Trenberth has mended his plagiarism, he did not mend his error of saying Phil Jones had never been an IPCC author before. Steve McIntyre pointed out that Jones and Trenberth had exactly the same IPCC experience. In a way, I can see Trenberth keeping the “deniers” term in the text because he feels he is above the skeptics and safe from any real meaningful criticism by the IPCC crowd. But why would he keep in something that is so easily proven wrong and possibly offensive to Phil Jones?
Evidently plagiarism is a greater offense than being blatantly and knowingly wrong.
Wow, I got snipped for using the “d” word, even though I made it perfectly clear that this word should only be used for people who oppose AGW by deliberately saying things they know to be false. I mean, what should I call them – liars?
The “d” word is mentioned in the title of this post – so it hardly seems reasonable to try and comment without using it.
But seriously, I don’t get it. I’m trying to understand the debate, and the tactics and positions involved. Are you guys not interested in that? Surely the point of this post was not just to kick Mr Trenberth?
Of particular interest is how we ended up in two opposing camps. As I said in my original comment, I ended up in the AGW camp after reading Al Gore’s book. Up until that time my knowledge of the subject was slight. So I’ll ask again, when did you decide which camp you were in? What made you decide that AGW was not a problem?
Mail sent. Asked for changes. Politely.
John Brookes
“saying things they know to be false”
What, like Al Gore and his nine untruths court case? if you want to debate then I suggest that you ask those you chose to follow to be more open to questions and not say such things as:
“Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.”
Or saying this:
“…after the interview [Al Gore] and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of climate-sceptic traitor.”
And that was to R Harrabin of the BBC, a full blown believer!
My ideas on this subject has come from many hours reading and studying across many sites and references I don’t just disagree with you because I find it funny, I disagree because I find no real science that backs your position! But that’s a pointless argument, as you will just tell me I don’t “accept basic ‘facts’ “, call me names and then the debate you claim to be after will go south!
Ohhhh Aaaanthony… (said with a lilt in my voice, as if I were calling out to you with some ‘truly’ interesting tidbit of information, my long distance Scientific friend…!)
I DID ‘do the Baily’s and java and did the 90 WPM-thing to the good Doctor… and I got one response within a few hours (though, the Baily’s knocked me a bit and I slept in and missed the first 15 minutes of CLASSIC Glenn Beck! See the lengths I go to for this site I enjoy???!!! warm smiles…)
So, I signed on tonight (it’s rather late, again) and to my surprise – there was a second email.
The first, was ~ I kinda understood, because he’s been ‘traveling’…
The second???
Well…I’ll post BOTH for you and afterward, perhaps you can tell me if you have a ‘fan’/colleague in this gentleman…or…not. After all, like ALL GOOD REPORTERS SHOULD (hahaha, like THAT happens!) ~ I’ll jus’ report and let YOU DECIDE.
Gimme a moment, though. I’ve got to figure out how to copy and ‘post’ this… Remember, I’m not super ‘internet saavy’… but, yesterday – I made GREAT mulberry jam.
One Moment. I’ll ‘do my best’, guys.
Thorpie
************************The First Response***************************
away from my mail
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 1366
for further information or if this involves travel.
Your mail regarding “Dear Dr. Trenberth… from Cynthia Thorpe in Kingston SE, South Australia” will be read when I return.
Regards
Kevin
*****WOW!!! I actually DID IT!!!**** THAT was the first ‘reply’ I received this morning ~ Which was the one I thought I’d receive, even ‘if’ he chose not to give a response, right?
But! I’ve now ALSO realized that I should show you the email I sent Dr. Trenberth, first! So, at the very least, we have ‘chronological order’ goin’ for this newbie ‘journalist’. (Hey. with the way THEY are these days… I should say JOURNALIST! and say it with my chest puffed out and my chin tilted like Barry’s always is! snicker, snicker… Oh, I’m enjoying this…) So……..lest I lose your attention… Here goes!
*********
Dear Dr. Trenberth… from Cynthia Thorpe in Kingston SE, South Australia
From:
Cynthia Lauren (moderators! I even ‘omitted my email address’! BOY, I’M GOOD!)
To: trenbert@ucar.edu
Hello, Sir.
I’m what you may call a scientist with a decidedly ‘little s’. I’m just an American female living in South Australia, who makes (it’s mulberry, today) jam, helps my husband with our cattle and sheep – and occasionally posts interesting articles for the Australian TEA Party over here in South Australia.
For fun and to expand my ‘knowledge base’, I enjoy reading ‘Watts Up with That’ and ‘Climate Depot’. I go to these sites to get ‘the latest news’ in somewhat nefarious ‘climate change’ debacle that has now ‘rather transfixed’ some in the ‘general non-Scientific’ but, decidedly ‘thinking still’ community, globally.
Today, or…rather, yesterday…(it’s almost 1am here in the ‘Coastal Outback’) I read a new article on ‘Watts Up’ regarding some ‘changes’ that were made to your PDF of your upcoming speech later this month. When I first read the first post of: COMMUNICATING CLIMATE SCIENCE AND THOUGHTS ON CLIMATEGATE and I kept reading the word ‘deniers’ and I simply thought the word was ‘in bad taste’.
(I’ve edited for many years and found the word to be ‘offensive’ depending on how ‘general’ your audience might be…) I also wondered, Sir – when you mention, ‘deniers’, are you talking about your colleagues? Are you talking about ‘regular non-scientist thinkers’ albeit, ‘thoughtful humans’, such as myself? And, lastly – perhaps a ‘sniggly’ point…but, IF the word ‘deniers’ is actually a ‘name’ for someone and you use it, as such… if it were a name, shouldn’t the ‘d’ in it, be capitalized, at the very least?
I was simply ‘offended’ by the word: ‘deniers’ because it seems such a crass word which has been used in the past (and now may ‘in the future’) to ‘paint with ‘too broad a brush’ folks who just want to hear and learn the REAL Scientific truth – whatever that may be. So, as a result, I thought it more than a ‘tad irresponsible’ coming from such a figure as yourself. That’s yet another ‘beef’ with the word you so often used. So, the ‘long and short’ of it is that I’d really like an answer from you regarding that word, ‘denier’ because it seems to have such negative connotations one may associate with it and I just thought ‘for the sake of courtesy’ in the debate ~ such words very unnecessary.
But, perhaps you can demonstrate to me that I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong before. And, I have no issue whatsoever in being corrected if I’ve misinterpreted your meaning/intent… So, when you have a moment – please clarify what you, in fact, meant by ‘deniers’. I’d really appreciate it. I have no agenda. No so-called, ‘axe to grind’, I’m just a woman who enjoys learning and knowledge and I for one, found your words to be ‘a bit suspect’ for someone who must certainly consider himself to be capable of remaining ‘unbiased’ in his professional dealings and the arena of truly civil discourse.
Thanks for your time and I look forward to the courtesy of your anticipated reply.
Cynthia Lauren Thorpe
Kingston SE, South Australia
********************************OKAY! HERE IT IS****** His Reply!*******
(can you tell that I absolutely LOVE suspense? tee~hee…!) (impish smiles)
*******************
G’day
I do draw a distinction between skeptics and deniers. The latter do not
accept what are pretty basic facts, and many distort the record
deliberately. I suggest you adopt some new sites for your edifcation such
as realclimate.org
Kevin Trenberth
********
Wowie Zowie, Anthony… Methinks the ‘good doctor’ may ‘protesth too much’ over
my choice of ‘Information Sites’…??? No Worries, Mate. THIS American won’t be swayed by a doctor, anyhow…. I’ve learned NOT to be a ‘respecter of persons’ regardless their title. I’d treat a elementary school janitor with more decorum than most politicians of this – our day.
Keep Smiling Anthony. You are greatly loved AND appreciated by many – myself, included. (she says as she smiles sheepishly and swears off Baily’s for a long while…!)
(Oh, and ‘p.s.’ he doesn’t check his spelling, either. He’d never be accepted on WattsUp Commentary, anyway…(!) warm-non-ista smiles to you all……
Cynthia Lauren Thorpe
(Finally DONE with her mulberry jam and off to mixing plumbs & apricots on the ‘morrow! While she hears a fellow commenter sayin’ I DON’T GIVE A DAMN, Scarlett…) Oh RATS, Rhett… I do so wish you would…
Giggles and Truth from ‘Downunda’, Guys. We GOTTA keep smilin’…!
Andrew Holder says:
January 16, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Good letter. But it might’ve had a smidge more impact if you’d called yourself “open minded” instead of “open mined”.
😉
OK, it’s about time for a refresher from Minnesota:
What is wrong with the term “deniers”?
When it comes to what is called “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (AGW) it is quite clear to me that I am one – and for that reason, in my case, “denier” describes my stance perfectly.
But then again, I am very sceptical (a skeptic) when it comes to what is known as “The Natural Greenhouse Theory” The reason for my scepticism is that just like in the case of AGW I have seen very little, or to be more accurate, no proof at all for the validity of that theory either.
That, of course, does not mean that a perfectly good explanation does not exist.
So therefore, yes I can understand that those among us who “believe” in the natural greenhouse effect and therefore agree that a rise in atmospheric CO2 “will have some very small influence on temperature.
But I would like to see the proof.
If proof is not forthcoming then I cannot understand how, otherwise sensible people, can intentionally ignore convection in favour of radiation which in our atmosphere is by far the weaker energy transporter.
OHD
[Reply: The term “denier” is a reference to “Holocaust denier,” and its derogatory use against other commentators or the general public is against site Policy. If someone needs to use that term as a pejorative, there are blogs that will welcome it. They are listed on the right sidebar under “Pro-AGW Views”. ~dbs, mod.]
Yes, but I know and I hope everybody know that the Holocaust is a proven event. I am not a “serial denier” who just denies for the sake of it.
If I am accused of being a denier of anything (on this occasion it would be an AGW denier) my answer is always: Prove your claim – which in this case is that an atmospheric rise of CO2 of 0.01% (from 0.028% to 0.039%) change my mind and make me a believer!
But I do see your point; the term “denier” can be offensive to some.
However as a denier I can demand to see proof for their claim. – As a skeptic I am admitting the possibility that AGW is happening.
Many well known skeptical scientists probably know what the proof for the “Natural GH effect” is (so it is then down to an opinion as to what the scale of the warming is, or is likely to be). That, to me, is a “no win situation.”
If you happen to know what the proof for “The Natural Greenhouse Effect” is, then please let me know. And I shall then call myself “a skeptic”
John Brookes says:
January 18, 2011 at 12:08 am …”So I’ll ask again, when did you decide which camp you were in? What made you decide that AGW was not a problem?”
After extensive search and appeal, I have been unable to find a physical explanation of how CO2 could cause the warming attributed to it by AGW proponents.
The stupid claims by Al Gore, IPCC, and AGW ilk, and their arrogant propaganda with crippling proposals, combined with their political clout; demand that the truth be heralded by all who see it, to expose the propaganda and defeat their proposals.
Wake up. To survive and prosper, we need more infrastructure and energy now, and cannot afford to waste what we have on projects that barely recoup the energy expended to build them.
O H Dahlsveen ~ I highly suggest you ‘read & get into the commentary discussion’
going on in WUWT’s:
‘Monckton skewers Steketee’
Posted on January 9, 2011 by Anthony Watts
I’ve read your well thought out posts, O H and even while the original article is ‘dated’
(January 9th) the honest and COMPELLING discussion between thoughtful Scientists on BOTH sides …….is simply…..brilliant and informative.
I suggest you check it out and who knows? You may even join in.
A ‘fellow Skeptic’
C.L. Thorpe
Cynthia Lauren Thorpe says on January 19, 2011 at 7:20 pm:
O H Dahlsveen ~ I highly suggest you ‘read & get into the commentary discussion’ going on in WUWT’s: ‘Monckton skewers Steketee’ Posted on January 9, 2011 by Anthony Watts
Yes Cynthia ~ Monckton is one of my many skeptical heroes and you can rest assured; I have read ‘Monckton skewers Steketee’ article where this Steketee fellow was stripped bare point by point.
Unfortunately, good honest articles like those written by all of “my skeptical heroes” like Monckton, Anthony Watts and other contributors of articles here at WUWT pass swiftly straight past the heads of most “ordinary people” (or the general public)
However I thought the thread for comments to this particular article was started by Anthony saying: “I’ll lead by saying it first: 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:”
I wrote my comments because although I know there are people who draw a parallel between “Holocaust denier” and “AGW (CAGW) denier” I also know they must have some kind of mindset that I haven’t got. – If that is the only way their brains can think up to show their distaste for me. – Should I be worried? – No, I don’t think so.
All they do is placating their own ignorance.
On this occasion, in spite of many requests to be polite, the name for ignorance is Dr. Trenbert.
Is he worried the ones he calls by that particular pejorative word are going to kill off his/their “gas theory”? – I hope so.
Anybody who draws that parallel therefore does not rattle my cage.
After having said all that I must also mention yesterday’s valuable “Reply from ~dbs, mod. (January 19, 2011 at 11:53 am) which made me think (sometimes that hurts): “maybe my impression of someone who calls him/her self ‘a skeptic’ was wrong.” So I looked “Skeptic” up at: http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Skeptic – and – I changed my mind. Point no 10 out of 12 sealed it as it says:
”Never imagine yours or anyone’s understanding to be wholly objective. Remember there is no such thing as a truly infallible source, and that your own interpretation of even a very reliable source is necessarily subjective, and therefore subject to error. You should consider your own experiences, if only because they are occasionally all you have to rely on. Even the statements of a highly reputable source should not be taken as writ, while those of a disreputable source should not be dismissed automatically.
Cynthia, I will from now on call myself a Skeptic (with a k) – it sounds better anyway.
OHD