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.
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.
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 🙂
Werner Brozek says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:21 pm
More a warming plateau, wait 10 more years.
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
If Trenberth believes this, why does he go to the IPCC for climate science ?
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.
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.
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.
“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!
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. 🙁
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.
It wasn’t even research, as in scientific research, it was just a poll.
Hah, we got ourselves a hockey schtick …
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).
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?”
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?
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
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.
There is a consensus that peptic ulcers are mostly caused by stress / food / lifestyle.
I laugh at quasicrystals as they are impossible.
In science it just takes ONE PERSON to be right and everything else goes into the trash can.
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.