On Dentists, Cardiologists, Climatologists and Evidence-Based Remedies

 

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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
RobertL

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!

edbarbar

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.

John F. Hultquist

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.

GeoLurking

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.

Interstellar Bill

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.

Barry L.

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)

RockyRoad

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.

Lew Skannen

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.

eyesonu

“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.

jorgekafkazar

In dental school, they teach you not to say “oops!”
I wonder what they teach you in climate school.

KenB

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.

Keith W.

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.

Andrew30

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.

Menth

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.

Werner Brozek

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

Russell Seitz

[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]

The Iconoclast

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?

Paul Westhaver

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.

DavidA

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.

Andrew Harding

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.

John

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.

Lawrie Ayres

I have just seen a quote which goes ” seek not authority to determine the truth but rather seek the truth to determine authority”. The second part sounds like science, the first part sounds like Trenberth and the AGW mob.

These guys (scientists?) are just trying their hardest to at least keep the AGW scam going until the upcoming elections. If BO can get re-elected then the EPA and Lisa Jackson get to finish their job of transforming our economy by continuing to shut down economical coal fired power plants using their new, ridiculous mercury standards, MACT rules, and particulates. Their efforts to drastically increase the cost of energy is destroying the middle class and jobs. If the Repubs take over the Senate and the presidency, then Lisa Jackson is gone; AGW is finished and funding will be severely curtailed; the UN climate team will lose all US funding; XL Pipeline will be built; oil and gas drilling will rapidly accelerate leading to cheaper energy and more prosperity for all.

pat

these are Australians’ retirement funds! and Aussies need to contact their Funds and object in the strongest manner possible:
1 Feb: Ninemsn: AAP: Super funds push for sustainability
Australian superannuation funds could shift their investments away from carbon-intensive industries under a push towards more socially responsible investment.
Under new guidelines released on Wednesday by the industry, fund managers in the $1.3 trillion sector will be expected to consider environmental, social and governance (ESG) principles when designing their investment strategy.
The guidelines are based on the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment.
Chief executive of VicSuper Michael Dundon, who has been instrumental in designing the local guidelines, told AAP that his $8.5 billion fund would focus on investing in the renewable energy sector.
“We are avoiding funds or stocks where substantial exposure to carbon,” he said…
“We see opportunities in wind and solar and other forms of technology that will deliver long-term returns.”
Fund managers have become increasingly focused on ensuring their money is put to a responsible use since the global financial crisis.
Australian super funds lost more than 20 per cent of their value during the course of 2008 and have been scrambling to claw back returns since, according to data from professional services firm Towers Watson.
“It makes long-term commercial good sense to do it as we’re offering and creating an investment strategy that gives good long-term returns,” Mr Dundon said…
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8412285

Sorry for the “double” post. First post seemed to have disappeared without the “awaiting moderation” thingy, so after about 5 mins I decided I needed to rewrite it… but now both show up 🙂

Keith Minto

Werner Brozek says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:21 pm

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?

More a warming plateau, wait 10 more years.

tokyoboy

OT, but since 30 Jan the number of daily views has been dramatically growing:
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s36wattsup&r=35
WUWT?
REPLY: Link from the Drudge Report on the Alaska story – Anthony

Man Bearpig

If Trenberth believes this, why does he go to the IPCC for climate science ?

Bill Hunter

Yeah Trenberth is about smart enough to have taken his own advice and gone to the first doctor for a series of bleeding sessions.
The rest of us will settle for treating ourselves until such time the profession isn’t completely populated with that kind of idiot.

JJ

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.
Well, when I am shopping for a scientist, I want one with enough grasp of the epistimological underpinnings of his profession to understand the fallacy ad verecundiam, and sufficient honesty to not try to use it.
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.
And when I am specifically looking for a “climate scientist”, I want one that, at minimum, understands the difference between the concepts “warm” and “warming”.
And when people like Kevin Trenberth, who clearly posesses neither of these fundamental qualities, rise to dominate a particular field, then I know that field is corrupt and not to be trusted. For anything. I wouldn’t let those dishonest, egomaniacal pseudo-scientists pick my socks, let alone direct the global economy.
Freaking witch doctors fancying that a medical analogy is appropriate… sheesh.

FrankK

Dennis Kuzara says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:17 pm
“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.
___________________________________________________________________
Yes 75 scientists out of 77 agree (i.e 97%). Doesn’t really wash does it.! More than 30,000 don’t.

Marian

“John F. Hultquist says:
January 31, 2012 at 9:46 pm
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.”
As a NZer. I’m ashamed Trenberth is a NZer!
The fraud he’s done borders on corruption. And NZ supposedly is rated for a low level of corruption compared to the International standing. Unfortunately NZ has a numberof Climate Scientists, etc sucking the teat of CO2 AGW/CC and are also key lead authors for the IPCC!

NovaReason

Appeal to authority is a classic logical fallacy, and Trenberth and his ilk can’t help but continually use it. The problem with logical fallacies is that people who are unaware of them can be persuaded by arguments that have no logical basis or truth to them. If their science can’t stand on it’s own merits. Their argument that skeptics are all taking money from Big Oil is equally fallacious – basically a reverse appeal to authority.
“Just because a man has much to gain in terms of peace and quiet from telling his wife that he loves her, it does not prevent it from being true.” – try as I might to find the original quote I am stealing this from I can’t. 🙁

Christopher Hanley

The article is a repetition the same tired old arguments like placing CAGW skepticism in odious company ( tobacco smoking ≠ disease, HIV ≠ AIDS ).
The past decade is the warmest in the entire 150 year record — so what? The warming has stopped long enough to at least raise serious doubts that human CO2 has been the overwhelming climate driver for the past 60 years.
How can Trenberth claim that “the long term [~250 year] warming has not abated”, is he is also clairvoyant?
Of course not, his models tell him that the warming, like the Creature from the Black Lagoon, is lurking “elsewhere in the climate system” waiting to rear up sometime in the future.
Investing in alternative energy sources will only come about when the market dictates, not by artificially inflating the price of carbon-based fuels command economy style, which will only stifle economic growth and impoverish people — there is plenty of historical evidence of that.

AdderW

Dennis Kuzara says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:17 pm
“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.

It wasn’t even research, as in scientific research, it was just a poll.

AdderW

tokyoboy says:
January 31, 2012 at 11:02 pm
OT, but since 30 Jan the number of daily views has been dramatically growing:
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s36wattsup&r=35
WUWT?
REPLY: Link from the Drudge Report on the Alaska story – Anthony

Hah, we got ourselves a hockey schtick …

The Infidel

Well now that you mention it, my wife just had to have an absist tooth taken out, and yes the dentist took out the wrong one!! And to make matters worse, we found out latter when my wife had to go back to have the correct tooth taken out that the dentist office did not even have equipment cleaning equipment on site.
Considering how sick it made my wife (almost 2 months) we don’t have high regards for some dentists (climate scientists).

Steve

A more accurate comparison to climate ‘scientists’ would be to ask: “If you need surgery, would you go to someone who has only ever done simulated surgery on computer games, and has never even touched a real patient?”

Jeff Norman

Wrong answer indeed.
If a surgeon tells you you need surgery you are advised to get a second opinion from a different doctor who isn’t necessarily a surgeon.

Yes the most ridiculous bit is the antiscientific mention of the 97% figure..plus of course appealing to authority with the likes of Gleick as signatories.
And even if the doctor analogy were appropriate…who would go to doctors whose expertise is doubted by the nurses around them?
Analogously why believe in Trenberth & co. when a majority of meteorologist don’t?

observa

DavidA points out the Catch22 problem with such medical analogies-
“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?”
Unfortunately our universities are full of the quacks and their quack medicine-
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20120130/End-alternative-medicine-degrees-say-scientists.aspx

Kev-in-UK

Steve says:
February 1, 2012 at 12:08 am
A more accurate comparison to climate ‘scientists’ would be to ask: “If you need surgery, would you go to someone who has only ever done simulated surgery on computer games, and has never even touched a real patient?”
————
I like that – but think it could be improved by adding something about diagnosis ability, accuracy or the ‘probability’ of success or error bars e.g…
‘A more accurate comparison to climate ‘scientists’ would be to ask: “Do you need desperate life saving surgery? Who says so? Are you sure? Which surgeon are you planning to use for the unique treatment never before attempted? Have you obtained a second opinion? Are there oother options? Are you prepared to go to someone who has only ever done simulated surgery on computer games, based on pixelated photos of a human body taken from the moon and has never even touched a real patient?”

Following up on Menth above:
“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 … “.
Yep. Watch your back – they might be coming after a profession near you …
I note with dismay that they are now after “sustainability” as an “easier sell” (eg they are in it for the money). Dammit. I have been doing sustainability (in building design, energy usage) for years. Now they are going to muck it up.
As Bob Carter observes, “Climate” embraces perhaps 100 or so scientific and technical disciplines and professions. No one person would have expertise in more than 3 or 4 of these. “Climate Scientist” is a contradiction in terms.

Someone needs to do a poll of parapsychologists to see how many feel that the science is settled on ESP. For myself, I’ll continue to trust an amazing guy who doesn’t even have a college degree.

Jimbo

There is a consensus that peptic ulcers are mostly caused by stress / food / lifestyle.
I laugh at quasicrystals as they are impossible.

The Nobel prize for chemistry has gone to a single researcher for his discovery of the structure of quasicrystals.
The new structural form was previously thought to be impossible and provoked controversy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15181187

Peptic ulcers are not caused by stress or eating spicy food,…..
http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/hpylori/

In science it just takes ONE PERSON to be right and everything else goes into the trash can.

George E. Smith;

It’s simply amazing that based on what Dr Trenberth is reported as having said, only a handful of “Scientists” are qualified in his view to give expert opinion on climate science.
How many “scientists” from the American Geophysical Association/union/society/whatever was it that said they agreed with the official position on climate that body took.
How many so-called climate scientists are simply statisticians, and not really competent to give expert opinion in Trenberth’s view.
How many are just computer programmers, who know how to write code for terraflop computers.
I suppose the vast majority of “climate scientists” aren’t really qualified to give expert opinions on climate, in Trenberth’s view. Some of them are just dendrochronologists, who think they know how to measure Temperature accurately with a tree.
Is Dr Trenberth qualified to assert just who is qualified to give expert opinion on climate.