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.
Kcom: Great piece! I suggest you recast this in the form of a letter to the WSJ and send it out.
kcom says:
February 1, 2012 at 7:00 am
Well said. Thanks.
Welcome to this week’s exciting episode of Dr. Trenbeth, DDS.
[as we open our scene, Dr. Trenbeth is in his exam room preparing to perform a root canal on a patient who’s already sitting in the chair, wearing bib and dental dam]
Dr. Trenbeth: Ok, let’s get this nasty infected root drilled out, shall we.
Patient (nodding): UGH UGH
[Dr. Trenbeth starts drilling and we see the patient wince]
Patient: gop! gop!
Dr. Trenbeth: Yes, my wife and kids are fine. Thanks for asking.
[the patient starts to thrash and wave his arms]
Patient: go! go! gong gooth! GONG GOOTH!
Dr. Trenbeth: No, we’ve decided to go to Italy for our vacation this year.
[finally, the patient rips off the dental dam]
Patient: Dr. Trenbeth, you’re drilling out the wrong tooth.
Dr. Trenbeth: No, that’s impossible. I’m a very careful professional. I’m a DDS!
Patient: But my bad tooth is on an upper, and you’re drilling on a lower…
Dr. Trenbeth: Oh no, you’re wrong. The bad tooth is definitely on the lower jaw.
Patient: But my upper tooth is the one that’s impacted! It hurts! Your assistant, Miss Joshina Willis took the X-Rays herself with that fancy new ARGO machine over there!
Dr. Trenbeth: Oh that. Oh, I see what’s happened. The ARGO X-Ray machine can be useful for some limited things, and yes, it did show a large infected abscess on your upper tooth. But I’ve run some powerful computer models that show your abscess is really on the lower tooth. This is where they almost always happen. All the other DDS’s agree with me completely. When you have a DDS behind your name, that MEANS I understand teeth. So you just relax, lie back and let me put this dental dam back on.
Patient: goh gay
[drilling starts again, then fades out] ….
THE END
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 ?
Looking for logical fallacies to comment on this group think letter, I came upon this one which is especially appropriate:
Chairman of the Board: “All those opposed to my arguments for the opening of a new department, signify by saying, ‘I resign.'”
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.
Terry W says:
February 1, 2012 at 9:41 am
WOW! Thanks for sharing!
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.
“Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused”
And that’s one of the reasons we don’t believe you Kevin
97% of 77 climate scientists from a survey 90% from the U.S., not really a world class survey
and all they believe is that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures”
“It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses”
Ok Kevin , show us a consensus on the enourmous risks, specifically from AGW.
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.
Part of that contribution would be from land-surface changes, irrigation, etc., not CO2.
More importantly, the poll only asked if humans were contributing to warming,, not to catastrophic warming.
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.
Climate scientists such as Trenberth and climate science camp followers such as Gleick continually ask sceptics: “Why will you not accept our authority on matters of climate?”
Sceptics continually answer: “Because you are not honest about your science. You know, as Arrhenius did, that nothing can be inferred about Earth’s temperature from the fact of rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere until someone creates and confirms some set of physical hypotheses which explain the effect of rising CO2 concentrations on the so-called “feedbacks” such as cloud behavior.”
Who must make the next move in this discussion?
Dennis Kuzara says:
“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.
And there was a post here that went through that so-called “study” and deconstructed it step by step – but I can’t seem to find it anymore. Anyone have that link?
Dr. Dave says:
February 1, 2012 at 11:17 am
Excellent post! Thanks much.
Dennis & Frank,
Re:
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.
Dr. Dave says:
February 1, 2012 at 11:17 am
I am one of those LICENSED people you wrote about and I will second Theo Goodwin’s excellent post. Thanks!
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! 🙂
Trenberths’ got a point.
I’ll choose my Climatologist based on their ability to get it right.
By the Kev, “You’re fired”.
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.
Yes, your dentist could be talking to you about heart problems…
There are lots of articles about this connection. Here are two.
Research Finds a Link Between Gum Disease and Acute Heart Attacks
http://www.oramd.com/gumdisease/heart-attacks.htm/
Gum Disease Links to Heart Disease and Stroke
http://www.perio.org/consumer/mbc.heart.htm
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!
Trenberth said “If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.”
And if you do statistical work in climate science you should interact with statisticians and not try to make up by yourself.
“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”?
@nobody in particular (naively) says-
“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?”
It’s like we Humanologists who sit above biology, medicine, physiology, psychiatry, psychology, physiotherapy,chiropracty,homeopathy,reflexology, iridology, etc, etc
What! You mean you haven’t heard of us? You just have you ignorant layman!