Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
Over at the Wall Street Journal a group of pedigreed individuals headed by Dr. Kevin Trenberth argue:
Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.
Wrong answer!!
If you need surgery you DON’T want “a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.” What you want is “a highly experienced expert in the field who has CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT HIS OR HER OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL!”
And if before I go to a dentist, I would like evidence that the dentist does not pull the wrong teeth (even on occasion).
Unfortunately, there is no convincing evidence that climate models can successfully predict future climate — and I mean “climate” not just “temperature.” [The latter is just one aspect of the climate and for many impacts it may not even be the most relevant.]
Climate models, which are the source of the apocalyptic vision of global warming, have not been validated using data that were not used in their development. Even the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and the IPCC acknowledge as much. Specifically, the IPCC does not say that “all” features of current climate or past climate changes can be reproduced, as a reliable model of climate change ought to be able to do endogenously. In fact, it notes:
“… models still show significant errors. Although these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large scale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time scale of 30 to 90 days).” (AR4WG1, p. 601).
And the CCSP has this to say in its 2008 publication, Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research:
“Climate model simulation of precipitation has improved over time but is still problematic. Correlation between models and observations is 50 to 60% for seasonal means on scales of a few hundred kilometers.” (CCSP 2008:3).
“In summary, modern AOGCMs generally simulate continental and larger-scale mean surface temperature and precipitation with considerable accuracy, but the models often are not reliable for smaller regions, particularly for precipitation.” (CCSP 2008: 52).
So before one pulls society’s economic teeth, validate the models or else you could end up pulling society’s economic teeth in error.
In the medical profession this would be known as “evidence-based medicine.” Exactly the same principle should apply to climate change remedies. We should insist on nothing less.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interestingly, I just read of a link between oral hygiene and heart disease today. It stated that poor oral hygiene can lead to chronic, low-grade bacterial infection of the heart – which is not good for it.
So – yes – you could go to the dentist for your heart condition!
Another way of thinking of this, is when you buy shoe-laces, do you really care that much about reputation? Not likely. The cost of a bad shoelace isn’t worth the effort.
When one is looking for a dentist, is selecting the right dentist as important as selecting the right Cardiac Surgeon? Probably not, though it can be painful to get the wrong one.
When looking to the prosperity, ability to advance technology, further our society, and have the resources to provide for the defense of the nation, we should be thinking that is far more important than a bad cardiologist or two.
Somehow, though, people love the fun of riding on the new fad of doomsday global warming, and all the fun feelings that engenders, so ironically.
I just read the letter by Trenberth and a long list of others living on the coattails of CAGW.
That letter is pathetic. Every one of those folks should be ashamed to have their name associated with it. WUWT gets better arguments from its trolls.
Former Massachusetts dentist Dr. Michael Clair was sentenced to one year in jail yesterday for substituting paper clips for stainless steel posts in root canals.
Besides the misuse of office supplies, Clair pleaded guilty to charges of assault and battery, illegally prescribing medication, witness intimidation and defrauding Medicare of $130,000.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/290625/20120131/paper-clip-dentist-dr-michael-clair-sentenced.htm
My guess is he is going into climatology after he gets out.
Yep, Merle Haggard will testify about teeth and general health. A tad more honestly than Trenberth, methinks.
And poor economic policies based on global-warming hysteria
can lead to chronic low-grade poverty and
infection of the heart of capitalism (individual initiative)
with runaway taxes, regulations, and predatory litigation,
leading inexorably to ultimate economic collapse,
the true goal of environmentalism.
This is a perfect textbook example of a logical fallacy.
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Logical_fallacy
“Recognizing fallacies in everyday arguments may be difficult since arguments are often embedded in rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical connections between statements. Informal fallacies may also exploit the emotions or intellectual or psychological weaknesses of the audience. Having the capability to recognize fallacies in arguments will hopefully reduce the likelihood of such an occurrence. ” (bingo!)
Have some of the people pushing the ’cause’ just shown clear evidence of Derailment (thought disorder)?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derailment_(thought_disorder)
I’m betting Trenberth has been watching those silly commercials on TV that show some professional working as a laborer then wondering why the job wasn’t done properly. Then he transferred that situation to his failed profession–that of the “climsci”–part climate (but not the whole story), and part scientist (but not an ethical one).
I suppose watching television is better therapy for Trenberth than wondering where all the missing heat is hidden.
This one of my ‘favourite’ analogies.
No one here (other than the odd heart surgeon) would presume to tell a heart surgeon how to do his job.
Yet if you are laid out on the table and see your heart surgeon reaching into the garbage bin for a scalpel I think that most people WOULD register some kind of complaint.
“Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.”
=======================
An appeal of authority?
I believe that I want an opinion of a general practitioner with an overall knowledge and no preconceived notions.
First thing that would need to be done is to determine if there is a heart condition or perhaps some other underlying cause, Clogged arties, diet, etc. If an expert at heart surgery would only look at the heart then all problems could only be solved with heart surgery. Lobotomy comes to mind.
If one only knows how to use a hammer and is not aware of, or willing to consider, other tools or alternative measures, then hammer and nails will be the only option.
In dental school, they teach you not to say “oops!”
I wonder what they teach you in climate school.
The day I read that these leading lights apologize for misleading the public on climate science and also for the poor ethical behaviour of some of their number, will be the day that I count as their road to rehabilitation. While they defend that miserable lot they haven’t even earned the right to have my consideration or respect, let alone my confidence.
Claimed eminence doesn’t cut the mustard!
“Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused.”
Just like whack-a-mole, that infamous 97% just keeps popping up.
With a father who is a cardiovascular surgeon, a brother who was a OB/GYN and a brother who is a DDS, I may be in an unique position of perspective here. I can truthfully say that both of my brothers took the same Anatomy & Physiology courses. Both could give the same level of expertise outside their specialty with regard to heart conditions, and discuss said subject intelligently with my father. Any medical professional who has received a doctoral level degree has a working knowledge of general medical conditions, including the heart. A dentist would certainly have the knowledge to hear a list of symptoms, and be able to suggest that you follow up with a specialist, and would also probably know at least a few reputable people to refer you to see.
When people use the doctor analogy I usually mention Merck/Vioxx:
Merck had:
Years of research.
Peer reviewed papers.
Medical studies.
Multi-year field trials.
Patient testimonials.
Favorable publication in scientific magazines.
Thousands of doctors believing them.
Millions of people believing them on multiple continents.
And the courts discovered that Merck, their researchers, the reviewers and the scientific publications had been lying and/or being deceptive the whole time, and that Merck had paid scientific publications to print lies and the scientific publications knew it.
People died.
Science won, Merck lost.
Perhaps we need something like the Merck/Vioxx trial to bring out the fraud in this whole AGW thing.
From the start of the WSJ column:
“Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work”
From the end of the WSJ column:
” In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.”
Wait, what?
I suppose according to Trenberth it’s important to remember that climatologists are also qualified experts in related subject matters such as (though not limited to)
-Economics
-Public Policy
-Civil Engineering
-Morality
-Anthropology
-Demographics
-Social Psychology
-Biology
Thus it is fair for them to comment on these things while flaunting their credentials.
The article by Trenberth had the following sentences:
Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record.
The trend for the last decade using the average of the four main data sets is negative as shown below. Is this not an abatement of the warming? As for the second sentence regarding the warmest decade on record. That is true, but that does not mean the warming is continuing during the decade. Let me illustrate it this way: I can turn a stove on and while it is increasing in temperature from 72 F to 82 F, it is WARMING, but still relatively COLD. On the other hand, if I turn the stove off at 350 F and it cools from 350 F to 340 F, it is COOLING, even though it is WARM.
WoodForTrees Temperature Index
#Mean of HADCRUT3VGL, GISTEMP, UAH and RSS,
#Time series (wti) from 1979 to 2012
#Selected data from 2002
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.00343579 per year
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2002/plot/wti/from:2002/trend
[snip I’m sorry Dr. Seitz, you’ve been banned for abuse of WUWT policy long ago (like shape shifting with multiple email addresses) and you know it, and for continuing to plaster your “weapons grade vitriol” about everything and anyone who happens to post or comment here. If you don’t like Mr. Rutan, please do take it up with him, perhaps you and he can argue about whether aliens wear bow ties.
In the meantime, please do be as upset as you wish. I’m done with you and your prickly condescending attitude towards people you disagree with.
Such a fine example for Harvard you set, sir. – Anthony Watts]
I couldn’t agree more. I refuse to consult anyone but my phrenologist when contemplating my head bumps.
It’s an elaborate argument from authority, and it rather deceptively equates the present state of climatology to that of cardiology. On a scale of phrenology at one end and neuroscience at the other, dendroclimatology is where, exactly?
Oh well said well said. Better yet, You want a surgeon who is skeptical of his own outcomes and sufficiently astute to persuade you that you may not need the surgery in the first place.
I know such men.Not just having performed many procedures, and not just having done so successfully, but the first person to talk you out of it if the outcome isn’t worth the procedure.
I would like to see such a climate scientists. Ones who are competent and suffers healthy doses of doubt.
They raise some terrible analogies to smear skeptics. I just watched that show “Science Under Attack” where Nurse puts a cancer hypothetical to Dellingpole: if he had cancer would he trust the consensus of the medical establishment or go with a new age therapy?
Well the medical establishment has treated and learnt from 100’s of millions of cancer patients. They give lab rats cancer and determine what works via trial and error. They treat humans as lab rats, they’ve got nothing to lose! With that background the consensus today is highly reliable.
There’s exactly one earth-like climate system from which scientists can glean their understanding. We haven’t once observed such a system under the influence of anthropogenic CO2 levels such as those supposed to cause CAGW. So we’re comparing 100’s of millions of real observed cases with 0.
I’d like to ask Nurse if he’d trust a cancer treatment which had only been tested on computer models of the human organism.
Hi RobertL, yes there is a link between heart disease, poor oral hygiene and periodontal disease (I am a dentist by the way!). Like so many other things in science though, is the link causal?
In other words do the bacteria in the mouth contribute directly to disease of the heart, or because a person’s oral hygiene is poor, does that mean that they do not look after themselves in other ways and as a result have lifestyle diseases? Smoking is strongly linked with periodontal disease, it is also strongly linked with emphysema, so does periodontal disease cause emphysema or are the causative factors of both down to self neglect and over indulgence in a dangerous habit? To complicate this equation you have bigoted scientists who base all their “research” on the evils of smoking.
In my view the same thing has happened in climate science. The planet has warmed as CO2 concentration has increased in the atmosphere, therefore CO2 is responsible for climate change. The fact that there has been no warming for 15 years while CO2 has still been increasing is irrelevant to the argument but not to the science.
I suppose we should thank our lucky stars that there isn’t a warmist,anti-smoking,dentist who has managed to suggest that smoking, climate change and poor oral hygiene are all linked!
just had to chuckle loudly seeing as author is in support of evidenced based medical model……
would ask you to read this and then chuckle with me hahah
Evidence-Based Medicine: Neither Good Evidence nor Good Medicine
http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v07n15.shtml
The warmists are trying to keep the AGW scam going at LEAST until the election. If BO gets re-elected as president, then the EPA will finish it’s job over the next four years of completely transforming our fossil fuel economy into a high priced, inefficient “green” economy . Economical coal fired power plants are being taken off-line in increasing numbers due to the new mercury, MACT rules, and particulates. If the Repubs take over the senate and the presidency….. CAGW is gone for good and so is Lisa Jackson and the job killing and middle-class destroying policies of the EPA. Also gone will be the funding for the UN climate scientists as well as most of the AGW funding train.
According to Naomi Orekes, climate scientists (and everyone else it seems) should not even have an open mind when it comes to the CAGW!!
Check out her opinion piece in the LA Times.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/22/opinion/la-oe-oreskes-judging-climate-change-20120122
She basically argues that as far as CO2 is concerned it’s guilty until proven inocent.