On Dentists, Cardiologists, Climatologists and Evidence-Based Remedies

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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!

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.

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.

[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]

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.

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.

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 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

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

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.

“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!

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.

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 …

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?”

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?

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?”

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.

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.

Climate scientist = amateur surgeon

I can’t account for the lack of warming and it’s a travesty. Now trust me as I am the authority.

So our beloved Trenberth has gone from “Scientist” to “Senior Scientist”, now on to “Distinguished Senior Scientist”. He even talks about himself in the third person in a letter he has himself signed. I think his delusions of grandeur are rather getting out of control. Perhaps he was miffed that he was not invited onto the NEW AGE ARK heading for the South Pole with the beloved leader and the Archangel Branson, he could have stood at Lord Gores left hand with the apostle Hansen. Yeah verily I say unto you, the 97% shall ascend unto the kingdom of Gore and ye doubters shall burn in the hellfire of Arizona…or Florida if you can afford the real estate.

Most other well established disciplines have a professional body that provides accreditation.
What single body accredits someone as a “Climate Scientist”?
It *looks* largely like a synthesis of other disciplines which have a longer track record and more stringent requirements for membership. Nothing wrong with that of course, every discipline has to start somewhere.
But it’s surely an important fact to consider that when a “Climate Scientist” discusses statistical matters, he’s standing on the shoulders of, say, research done by members of the ASA, and that if a “Climate Scientist” is criticised for misapplication of a technique in a field where they are by necessity a relative dilettante, they should STFU and listen.

Any medic will say that to put all your faith in just one speciality is hardly a good idea!
What these agenda driven climate alarmists are doing is to advocate a “tourniquet round the neck for a nosebleed”
Not my words – but a fantastic description of the mindset of the Alarmists.

I believe the “97%” of scientists said humans were “a significant contributing factor” NOT the CAUSE. 75 doesn’t even come close to the over 1000 that have identified with the skeptic side at the GWPF.

The analogy is completely wrong. Neither dentists nor surgeons create theories.
Both are experimentalists, using their own experience and intuition, with plenty of feedback.
When you correctly apply the dentist/surgeon metaphor to climate, you don’t get climatologist vs skeptic; you get something like geologist vs meteorologist. Both understand the world in an experiential way. One is experienced in measuring rocks and soils, the other is experienced in measuring atmospheric qualities. Would I trust EITHER ONE to tell me something about climate? Hell yes. Based on actual output, both geologists and meteorologists do a pretty good job of estimating future climate.
I wouldn’t trust any sort of theorist to predict anything at all, because all theorists in all fields are wrong. A total waste of human brainpower.

Unlike climatologist, neither cardiologist nor dentist are self-appointed designations.

If we want to know whether the Earth faces a Eugenics crisis, should we ask a 1920s expert Eugenicist?

Jason Joice M.D. says:
February 1, 2012 at 4:10 am
“Look, I’m the expert here. Just shut up and sign this consent form”.
====================================================
At least you try to get a consent form signed, “The Team” is just shoving the medication down our throats without even asking if we want/need it.

Kevin Trenberth sez:
“In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work.”
This puts the Climategate e-mails into perspective. The CAGW climate scientists like Mann, Trenberth, and Santer clearly did EVERYTHING they could to keep skeptic papers out of peer-reviewed journals, because they knew that publishing in the journals would severely undercut their authority. Just shameful!!
Time to zero-fund these people…in November.

Funny thing about surgeons. While drugs are subject to endless tests before approval, surgical procedures are not. There is a procedure where a surgeon opens up your knee and removes rubbish, trims your cartilage and such like. One day, some bright spark got the idea of actually doing a trial on this procedure. So when people came in for it, they all got the anaesthetic and the cut, but only half got the rest of the procedure. When they were followed up some time later, there was no difference in knee function between the two groups.
You can read about it at http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/arthroscopic-surgery-for-osteoarthritis-of-the-knee/3184850.
But as for climate models and predictions, they do a lot better than the “skeptics” predictions, so they must be doing something right. Of course “skeptics” are unfairly disadvantaged when it comes to making predictions, because they can’t predict rising temperatures or falling arctic sea ice (not without getting kicked out the “skeptics” club anyway).

Smokey says:
February 1, 2012 at 5:54 am
John Brookes doesn’t understand that one does not do an invasive procedure just as a placebo. In my mind, such an act is criminal.

It’s clear that these guys (the so-called REAL “scientists”) are truly freaking out. I suppose I might be too, if I was in the precarious position of seeing my career be laid to rest because the data just won’t comply with the models and dire forecasts. And this is why I got out of (health sciences / epidemiological) research 20 years ago, as my superiors – the grant/funding rainmakers, tried steering me towards finding results that just weren’t in the data, instead of allowing me to let the data to speak for itself. Funding is gained by presenting a very strong hypothesis. If the data don’t end up supporting that hypothesis, that should be a significant result in itself. But not in the eyes of those whose careers depend on finding results that support a given hypothesis. Sad to say, but funding entities seem to only be interested in funding those who have a track record of presenting interesting hypotheses and consequently finding interesting results.
In the case of AGW, the next 10 years of global temperature data will determine whether this matter will continue to be the contentious battle that it is now. If the temperatures do not rise, and actually begin to fall, well, I just hope all these fervent advocates and enablers are around to face the music.

The last thing you want to do is go to an expert alone for his advice. His bias is to promote what he knows best. It’s the “if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail” situation. Get a second opinion. And a third. From intelligent people, but who are uninvested in the outcome. From many counselors comes wisdom.

So, essentially, since the peer review system for the climatology has become an instant-self-publication-mill we’re to trust them as “experts”.
Sorry, but I’d listen to real doctors and only if they have proof, otherwise I get a second opinion.

“Correlation between models and observations is 50 to 60% for seasonal means on scales of a few hundred kilometers.”
So they can’t predict the rain for the season any better than they can predict the rain from an oncoming storm.
But I can reliably predict continued denial and mendacity from the climatological-bureaucratic complex.

How long must we be abused by the False Analogy between climate scientists and physicians? Kevin Trenberth states his version of the fallacious argument as follows:
“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.”
Physicians practice healing of patients. Scientists create understanding of the universe. The two fields do not have the same goals and cannot be measured by the same standards. Does anyone believe that the surgeon who decided to cut a hole in his patient’s leg so that he could access an artery and thread a tube into the patient’s heart so that he could inflate a balloon on the end of the tube was practicing science? Of course not. Does anyone believe that the surgeon was justified in his novel actions because he had presented evidence of its likely success? Of course not. Does anyone believe that the surgeon was justified because he had done a large number of this kind of operation? Of course not. The surgeon was justified because all known means of treating the patient’s condition had failed and the surgeon’s unproven technique offered the only hope of relieving the patient’s suffering.
No doubt the reason that people like Trenberth continue to compare themselves to physicians is that they believe that they deserve the respect that physicians receive from patients. But the comparison is made in vain because the respect that physicians receive is based on a record of success in relieving the suffering of patients. By that standard, climate scientists deserve no respect whatsoever. They have failed completely in their efforts to produce scientific theories which explain the behavior of our climate, which rest on empirical evidence, and which can be understood by the highly educated among the masses of humanity. They have failed just as completely in their efforts to offer reasonable paths to healing for what they see as the planet’s sickness.
Some have suggested that Trenberth and friends are wedded to the fallacious comparison because they view themselves as physicians to the planet and to humanity. If there is any truth to this suggestion then Trenberth and friends are truly dangerous.
The goal of scientists and the chief duty of scientists is to produce understanding of their piece of the universe. Climate scientists have failed to offer something beyond unvalidated computer simulations and nonempirical claims about proxies such as tree rings. On all the standard measures of scientific success, they have failed. The most telling failure is in their inability to present well confirmed physical hypotheses which explain the connections between rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and the so-called “feedbacks” such as cloud behavior. Even Arrhenius knew that the effect of CO2 on Earth’s temperature could not be determined without the knowledge provided by such well confirmed physical hypotheses.
Finally, climate scientists commit the fallacy of False Analogy because they want the trust that patients have for physicians who have a record of healing people like them. They do not want to be held to a standard of clarity and evidence. They do not want to explain their own science in a way that the prospective “patients,” consumers of science, can understand. To that attitude, I say “Scientist, explicate yourself.”

kcom says:
February 1, 2012 at 7:00 am
Well said. Thanks.

In the 4th paragraph of his joint-letter Kevin Trenberth mentions: “Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean”. Then how do climatologists know if some of the warming in the late 20th century was not due to a heat transfer from the deep oceans ?

In medicine evidence based research is based on opinions, not fact or scientific analysis, and so it is misleading and worthless. Breathing causes cancer is a prime example.

I have never understood this argument, because the range of factors that affect climate go far beyond what any individual or relatively small clique can master. If expert physicists and expert statisticians say your physics and statistical methods are wrong, why should anyone care that they’re not expert climatologists? A climatologist is the family doctor, and should refer you to a cardiologist if he suspects a heart condition.

It’s a mistake to make a comparison to surgeons, dentists or psychiatrists as these are very specific sub-specialties of medicine as a whole (dentists are essentially surgeons). I would be hesitant to use cardiologists or gastroenterologists because although they are primarily diagnosticians, they also perform procedures (e.g. angioplasty, stents, endoscopies, etc.). A better example is to use physicians who get paid “for knowin’ stuff” like internists, FPs, radiologists, etc. Even still, the comparison would be invalid. Consider these differences:
– Physicians may have different majors in their undergraduate studies (usually biology or chemistry but I once knew one who was an EE), but they ALL go through med school. Some physicians here may beg to differ with me, but for the most part the curricula doesn’t vary much from Harvard and state universities. All physicians are taught the same basic stuff (and all studied the same excellent Frank Netter illustrations to get through gross anatomy). Upon graduation from med school they’re all physicians – not butterfly scientists, astrophysicists, ecologists, geologists, etc.
– At the end of med school they must pass the medical boards and license as physicians. We don’t require a license to practice “climate science”. We don’t even regulate the practice of “climate science”.
– Then they must secure a match for a residency which can last for 3 to 5 years. After residency training they must pass their specialty board certification. Many take fellowships after residency (necessary for stuff like cardiovascular surgery, neurosurgery, cardiology, infectious disease, rheumatology, etc.). Compare these rigors to the “environmental studies” graduates on Trenberth’s list.
– When physicians make mistakes patient morbidity or mortality can result. When a climate scientist utterly fails in one of their insipid “I can predict the future” predictions they don’t even lose their funding. The physician gets sued.
– If you read much medical literature (which, in my opinion is MUCH easier to understand than the deliberately cryptic “climate science” literature), you’ll note that most of the time at the end of the paper there is an acknowledgement to the dispassionate statistician who assisted them in their experimental design and data analysis. As per evidenced by the Wegman incident, climate scientists have utter contempt for independent statisticians.
– The practice of medicine is largely derived from empirical data, not computer models. Most medical research (and certainly pharmaceutical research) is readily reproducible. Medicine rapidly responds to new information. “Climate science” seems to fight it tooth and nail. A little over 15 years ago physicians were using sublingual nifedipine for the management of acute angina. What’s more they had a very sound theoretical basis for this therapeutic intervention. After the publication of ONE retrospective study that showed that using nifedipine in this manner actually increased mortality the practice was abandoned overnight. I have bored WUWT readers with several other fine examples but the bottom line is that medicine responds to new information. The climate zealots cling to their largely disproven central belief.
– The “consensus science” in medicine is essentially “evidence based medicine” but it’s very different from the “consensus science” in climate science. I follow the latest clinical guidelines for community acquired pneumonia. These change slightly every year or two. The general guidelines are developed by pulmonologists and infectious disease experts who review all the data “from the peer reviewed literature”. They publish what they consider to be the best diagnostic and therapeutic advice. But there’s nothing else in it for them. Their mission is to treat patients and earn a living. Their livelihood is not dependent on government grants.
So in my opinion climate scientists are not only not in the same league as physicians…they’re not even in the same parking lot. If Trenberth, et al want to equate themselves with physicians they should be willing to assume the same degree of legal liability, have a standard of training to define their profession and be licensed to practice (by examination) just like professional lawyers, physicians, dentists, pharmacists, nurses, engineers, etc.

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.”
————————————————————————
Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that the editors that allowed the other 3% to be published should be fired and blackballed from the climate publishing industry.
Research shows that more than 97% of astrologers actively publishing in their field agree that astrology is real and humans better heed their warnings.
Research shows that more than 97% of guests on the George Noory/Art Bell show agree that UFOs are real but not human caused.

Dennis & Frank,
Re:

FrankK says:
January 31, 2012 at 11:18 pm
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.

You guys just don’t get it. The press release for the pitiful study that spawned the
97 % Kevin Trenberth quote is just as reliable as most of the
other climate related statistics he passes around.
Indeed, for Trenberth, Mann, Hansen, Bradley, et al., the reliability of this statistic
exemplifies what has become the industry standard for their Team of
climate experts.

If a sugeon cuts my nose open instead of my heart, I will notice. I don’t need to be a doctor to notice.
I don’t need to be a climatologist to notice that CAGW is an imaginary problem used as a weapon in the battle for control over energy resources.
As a side note, we’re having the third really cold winter in a row here in Sweden right now. Gimme some heat! 🙂

It was parochially comforting for this old country boy to learn that Virginia has enjoyed maybe its warmest January ever. Of course, we must add, “on record.” Weather calculations were most likely not recorded on a monthly basis back in the old days when the Brits ruled here, and everyone attending Aquia Church had to pay up something each Sunday to the Crown. Or even before, when Indians quarreled over things locally, like the fate of Pocahontas.
Even so, one would think, based on historical measurements of the weather, that some kind of agreement could be reached about our world and its climate—other than “things change.” They do indeed. Things have tended to stay awfully cold and then quite warm for extended periods.
Some folks claim that today’s warm periods here on earth have lasted a long time and threaten to get even hotter unless we do something.They argue we should stop breathing out CO2. I exaggerate, but in essence the CO2 increase in the world is claimed to be making us too warm for our own good.
I don’t know about that. Fact is, when it’s been warm our world has seemed to prosper more than when it’s been cold. History books tell us that warmer temperatures have correlated with greater human prosperty and bountiful harvests.
During today’s long warm spell, we see crop yields per acre reaching new highs never before hardly even contemplated. Is that cause and effect? Maybe not totally, for science has produced yield-enhancing technology apart from the prevailing climate from season to season. But could crop production have been nearly so abundant if the weather had stayed cold as all get-out?
I would guess not. Cold climates, not warm, correlate with harm to mankind.

RaymondT says:
February 1, 2012 at 8:50 am
Then how do climatologists know if some of the warming in the late 20th century was not due to a heat transfer from the deep oceans?
The deep oceans are at about 3 C, and heat does not travel from cold to hot. So it stands to reason that IF Trenberth is correct that some heat went into the deep ocean, then it would never come out until the whole deep ocean is warmer than the surface layers. I have the feeling that Hansen’s grandchildren have nothing to worry about!

“If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.”
For a start seems Dr. Kevin Trenberth don’t understand the difference between a Theory and a Scientific Law.
When Dr. Kevin Trenberth have ever made an “operation”?

I can’t believe that Trenbeth even trotted out, “Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. ”
From the WUWT archive: The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.”
GMU on climate scientists: we are the 97%
Posted on November 21, 2011 by Anthony Watts

“most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert.”
===================================================
…..James Hansen

What you want is “a highly experienced expert in the field who has CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT HIS OR HER OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL!”
Excellent.

Sorry, it is YOUR job to prove that what you are doing is safe. Your reversal of the usual rules of law and logic makes a mockery of your mockery.
Consider that the last time this planet had CO2 at these levels the temperature was stable at +4 degrees of warming. It was the Pliocene, more than 3 MILLION years ago. It took that long for the natural processes of the planet to sequester the carbon that got us down to the pre-industrial level of 150 years go, and we put all of it back in 150 years…. 20 thousand times faster. The planet is still warming and will continue to warm until it gets back to +4 degrees… but the effect of having it happen 20000 times faster is not easily understood from paleoclimatology. Nothing like it we can closely identify. It is still going on, this experiment of yours with the only planet we have. Still pumping the CO2 into the air… so we COULD get to +6 degrees, which means no ice at either pole and a real possibility of shutting off the deep ocean turnover, turning the ocean anoxic and arranging something very like the Permian die-off.
The point of course, is that YOU cannot prove that that won’t happen. YOU can’t prove that the temperature won’t rise the way it did last time, there is no evidence whatsoever that you can point to in support of that hypothesis.
YOU can’t prove that you won’t kill every living thing on the planet by continuing business as usual, fracking the planet and dumping the waste in the atmosphere we all use for breathing.
The benefits of BAU go to the 1%, not to the poor, NEVER to the poor. So it is very clear why the WSJ has an editorial policy that favors denialism. It is clear why the wealthiest people back organizations like CEI. It is clear why they buy ever larger shares of media ownership. This is tobacco all over again… except the stakes are a lot higher.
Which is really the point here. Rich folks want YOU to demand proof, which isn’t what science EVER provides, that THEIR business as usual is damaging the climate… but it is THEIR obligation to provide proof that BAU is not damaging, because THEY are the ones who are causing the change and benefiting from it. They simply are better at reframing arguments and making propaganda than scientists are. So they have you all braying about the science… when the real problem is THEIR lack of proof.
You are being lied to comprehensively, but not by scientists.
You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that what you are being led to support won’t kill every living thing on the planet.
The lowest solar output in a century, multiple la nina events and the best argument you can manage is brief “plateau” ?
A trend over 150 years and you try to pick another trend out of a space of time a tenth that duration? What good is that really? At 15 years any trend is unlikely to even be discernible from the noise.
This is, without a doubt, the most worthless bag of hammers I have ever had the misfortune to run across. I won’t be back. You can rubbish whatever you like of YOURS, but get your stinking paws off OUR planet.

“It took that long for the natural processes of the planet to sequester the carbon that got us down to the pre-industrial level of 150 years go,”
You act like that is a goal in and of itself. Like that is some natural state of things. Why do you think that? What is special about the pre-industrial level of 150 years ago?

Mr_C
“Sorry, it is YOUR job to prove that what you are doing is safe. Your reversal of the usual rules of law and logic makes a mockery of your mockery “
I think reversing the null hypothesis has been dealt with.
The onus is on the asserter to prove your assertion
I cannot prove God doesn’t exist, does that prove he does?
The failure of the 97% of scientists in the mythical consensus to reverse the null hypothesis makes a mockery of the consensus.
You have 97%, what’s stopping you?

tolo4zero says:
February 2, 2012 at 8:33 am
” climate change is real and human caused ”
So now we are actually the cause of climate change ?
Were he/she/it to ever return one might ask how the climate changed before humans walked the earth. Bawhahahaha!!!

So, in their rebuttal, Trenberth et. al. did not refute one claim of the original WSJ editorial. They merely use appeal to authority to claim that the original editiorial is written by people without the proper expertise, or by people with extreme views. Then Trenberth et. al. point out that etremists don’t believe HIV causes AIDS. However, it is just as easy to cite examples where scientists with opinions contrdicting the established ideas turned out to be right, if we’re citing anecdotal evidence.

@Bill Parsons says on February 2, 2012 at 9:52 am
They are not economists, and while I favor my doctor, I doubt I will be recommending anyone to them for any medical issues.

I think a better analogy would be if, if you want to find out about timeshares, talk to timeshare salesmen.