From a story in The Melbourne Age:
Professor Trenberth is a bruised survivor of the so-called ”climategate” scandal, which involved the theft and publication of thousands of emails that had been sent between some of the world’s most influential climate researchers.
While he and his colleagues were cleared by a series of investigations, the people who hacked the email system at Britain’s University of East Anglia have never been caught, and the case was closed, unsolved, earlier this year.
Professor Trenberth believes it had a big impact on public debates about climate science. ”It made an immense difference – the level of vitriol and hate we received,” he said. ”Not only do we have waves of attacks when we publish and it ends up on a denialist website, but it has affected politicians.”
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently had its climate change-related research budget slashed by a fifth, affecting Professor Trenberth’s peers, as a result of online campaigns against climate scientists, he said. He believes uncertainties in climate change models scientists rely upon is being falsely inflated as a general uncertainty about the status of climate science.
”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work,” Professor Trenberth said.
h/t Old Ranga from Oz
The Gray Monk says:
October 12, 2012 at 2:25 am
What happens to his argument when the numbers don’t add up? People like Dr. Trenberth see the majority of us as complete idiots, unable to see through the smoke and mirrors.
It takes a remarkable degree of self confidence to practice any form of science or engineering. KT probably doesn’t consider what he broadcasts as “smoke and mirrors.” He merely wants to separate the “true and beautiful” [his theory] from the noisy messiness of reality. That is pretty clear in his climategate complaint about missing heat and the data therefore being wrong. Theory clearly right, thus conflicting data must clearly be wrong. He argues like a philosopher rather than a scientist. So do most of the putative scientists on “the team.”
These models are not accurate representations of the atmosphere – at best they model a tiny fraction of it – and extrapolating anything beyond that is full of “uncertainty.” I know, I use models in my work. They don’t always replicate reality.
I would argue that models, which are always simplifications, never “replicate” reality, though a good one will approximate reality.
To avoid doubt, sarcastic yes in the sense of CO2 influence on climate but I did not say that.
By calling it nonsense in the second sentence I assumed that that would have been clear, but that shows once more what assume stands for.
While one would have to run the specific numbers through the most sophisticated computer model available to date, I am very confident ( I believe that means more than 95% in IPCC speak) that it will show that had we not spent all those billions in direct and indirect funding (with indirect I mean funds spent on alternative energy schemes etc) on this codswallop research and related issues the world would have been in a much better financial situation.
Hence the comment that CO2 is having a direct influence on the planet, I never said that it had any influence on the climate.
While I have never taken the time to add it all up the total cost so far of this debacle will be in the trillions, but like the supposed degree of warming we can debate endlessly what can and can not qualify as money spent on AGW related issues.
Imagine how much world wide poverty we could have reduced had we spent all that money on humanitarian issues, oh wait then we would still have been in the same Financial Meltdown. That is the trouble with money, we can only spend it once. Let’s spend it wisely.
Oops,
I formatted the links to the NOAA budgets wrong. They should be:
FY2011 http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy11_bluebook/FY_2011_NOAA_Blue_Book.pdf
FY2012 http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy12_bluebook/NOAAblueBook_2k12.pdf
FY2013 http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy13_bluebook/noaaBlueBook_2013_Web_Full.pdf
outtheback,
My apologies for misunderstanding. You were being funny, but there are lots of people who truly believe your sarcasm: “Absolutely correct that CO2 is having a disastrous effect on this planet.”
It cannot be pointed out too often that CO2 has no measurable effect on the planet. Therefore, AGW stops at the Conjecture stage of the Scientific Method. It is not even a testable Hypothesis, much less a Theory.
Why is he a survivor of the CRU emails? He should have been fired and charged with impersonating a scientist for grant money purposes. What bothers me here, other than the media failure and fake enquiries, is the money.It appears the USA put up the majority of the funding for what has turned out to be an attack on the US economy, way of life and individual freedom .
At what point, if this is true, does this become treason on the part of those who set this in motion?Here in Canada we are rid of the politicians who bought Canada into this scam but no criminal investigations have been announced to date, rather the federal govt is quietly cutting funding and suggesting layoffs are imminent within the civil service as they back away from the Kyoto BS and any further such nonsense. I suppose thats the politically appropriate solution but I want retribution, this fraud was and is an attack on our wallets and freedom and a betrayal of the public trust.
The comment that there must be an aerosol that causes these creatures to stop their nibbling at the roots of society and come out into the sunlight was priceless. The arrogance of the CAWG academics is amazing, if we challenge their assertions we are stupid little people who should defer to the majesty of our betters?These elected and appointed royalty must be removed from positions of trust and authority as in their promotion of the CAWG scam, and after the CRU emails, their attempts to defend the indefensible have shown they have zero in the way of ethics and credibility.
Climategate showed that the standards of climate science were way, way, below the public perception and that there were conflicts of interest. When the collapse of Enron showed that the accountancy profession had standards below the public perception and conflicts of interest there was no whitewashing. There was a instead a very heavy-handed raft of new regulations. Yet the conflicts and lack of standards in climate science are much below those of the accountancy profession a decade ago, and the consequences for humanity of this lack poses far greater consequences for our economic well-being.
“He believes uncertainties in climate change models *scientists rely upon* is being falsely inflated as a general uncertainty about the status of climate science.” [emphasis added]
A contradiction in terms. The models are unreliable, the scientists rely upon them, but we’re supposed to rely upon the scientists (at least Trenberth’s scientists). In fact, the models are more reliable than the scientists.
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/climate-change-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont-2/
It’s just that bloody earth that won’t cooperate.
That remaining 80% of funding needs to be cut straight away. It is snowing in Australia from Queensland to South Australia and the Warmistas are tucked up in bed with their Dunce’s Caps on trying to keep warm and hoping that no one notices their utter failure.
I’m confused. Is or isn’t weather climate? These climologists can’t even keep that straight.
What sort of inane comment is this?
“With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work,” Professor Trenberth said.
I can tell him what the link is: when you average the weather over 30 years it is climate. It’s a definition; it does not need any further research.
CodeTech says:
October 12, 2012 at 2:27 am
he and his colleagues were cleared by a series of investigations
==========
conducted by folks that stood to gain as a result of the findings. The fix was in from the start. No outside witnesses needed or welcome, thank you.
Let me assist you. 😉
1) Weather is climate when there is a heatwave in the USA.
2) Weather is just the weather when it snows with freezing temperatures in Australia.
3) Weather is climate when Australia has one of its usual droughts.
4) Weather is and is not the climate / weather when Australia recently got Biblical floods.
and so on……………………………..
These scammers must know the jig is up. There massive funding fraud has to come to a slow and miserable end sooner or later.
I’m sorry, but would someone please explain to me how this is NOT an admission of a conflict of interest? We promote CAGW because our paychecks are linked to it.
David A. Evans says:
October 12, 2012 at 11:17 am
to a degree – yes, absolutely – but as an international forum, some folk may not always grasp the sarcastic over(or under)tones! (IMHO – It is worth remembering that ones mans humour can be anothers distress! – different strokes and all that…)
Do I detect the smell of burning martyr?
kinda off topic – but related to my previous comment re Trenberths (non) scientific attitude. I was wondering whether it would be a worthwile exercise to have poll of the actual scientists that frequent WUWT to ask if they (like myself) feel that science has all but been abandoned and denigrated within the climate science field.
I’m being serious here, and kinda curious to know if others (only the scientifically trained folk, not the layfolk) feel the outrage at the politically biased BS produced in the name of ‘science’ to promote AGW themes (or vice versa, the anti-AGW themes, which seems much less common!).
I write reports for a living and if in doubt, I always express those doubts, as a scientist and engineer. I know that some assumptions I make MAY be wrong or uncertain, but I always draw them to the fore, and any limitations of the work/study are important to admit and explain…. I really want to ask these people (as in the team) why they cannot do this themselves. Sure, everyone has their own preferences and biases – but when it comes to the scientific facts these should NEVER be twisted. For myself, as a classically trained scientist, I genuinely feel denigrated and disgusted by the actions of the ‘bad science’ exposed and outrageously promoted by the warmista – perhaps it’s because I am simply ‘old school’ – but the belief of the search for the answer and the truth within all aspects of science should be paramount in any scientifically trained persons mindset IMHO – or am I just too old fashioned ? has science moved on past the classical stance, and I am unaware of this?
I would seriously like to know how others view this aspect of the whole issue……..sometimes, I feel almost alone in upholding my scientific ‘principles’ – even though I am fully aware of other skeptics views of the ‘climate science’ as presented.
Look at it another way, if you see something published in your field that is obviously wrong or biased (I’m talking only science here) to my mind, you have a DUTY to point it out. In the true scientific world, this would already have been done by the author (self doubt and self questioning, etc), but assuming it ‘got through’; it should then be picked up by your peers (hence the term peer review!) – but if you and your peers are blinded by some agenda – how could the real truthful science ever be presented? This is the crux of what we are up against in the climate science arena. To me, it is an outrage and I would like to know how other trained scientists feel about this when they see and review the hysterical type headline papers. I’d like to ask them; when they see these types of papers, do they also feel disgusted and denigrated as scientists like I do? Do they feel outraged? or disenchanted with their own personal (as in, tarred with the same brush, if you will) scientific status?
In the old days, a peer reviewed publication was an illustration of the ‘acceptance’ of the findings as relatively ‘correct’ – but this is clearly not true today. How do current scientists view this situation? Do the young scientific pups of today ‘know’ that the publications are not necessarily validated correctly? In the old days, you would cite a paper or previous work by others ‘knowing’ it was relatively honest and truthful – can the same be said of the current climate science publications?
I have no problems with mistakes getting through the ‘system’ – sometimes, this is inevitable – but complete scientific BS (like most of the CO2=AGW rubbish) should never see the light of day!
Sorry for the long post/rant….but I do think a poll would be a good indication of understanding by others……
“…Professor Trenberth believes it had a big impact on public debates about climate science…”
WHAT public debates about climate science?
And, about that second statement “…An example would be Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, where there was about 11 inches [28 centimetres] of rain. About one inch of that was due to human influence. Maybe that extra inch was enough to cause the levee to break..”
Yet sections of the Midwest are still classified as being in a drought. If human influence causes about an inch of rain, maybe that extra inch will be enough to cause the drought to break.
“we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work”
Trenberth needs to take a vacation from his PR job, and try doing science science. If the numbers don’t add up,they don’t add up, and adjusting the data like he usually does is getting tiresome. Oh, yeah, he knows they are there, but how does he know? He is blinded by his own confirmation bias. On top of that, we are paying his salary. The best and brightest do not work for government.
Dr., I like your posts generally, but otb’s comment is both simultaneously hyperbolic (extreme exaggeration) and serious. Note that the effect adduced is FINANCIAL, nothing whatsoever to do with atmospheric physics, and yet is a clever backhanded reference to the possibility that the climatology fraud and the engineered collapse were both machinations of the anti-industrialists like Strong, Holdren, and Ehrlich.
Do Germans do humour?
Brian H says:
“Do Germans do humour?”
Yes, if they read the comment closely, instead of scanning it and reacting too quickly. Lesson learned. ☹
kencoffman (@kencoffman) on October 12, 2012 at 4:19 am
I don’t see many skeptics attacking the fact that CO2 absorbs IR.
–Bill Hunter
That’s correct, I don’t know anyone who disputes the fact that CO2 absorbs IR in certain narrow bandwidths.
————
I do. That person claimed that a statement of principle by a Nobel laureate made the absorption of IR impossible. That person is of course an idiot. And can’t read to good. Seems like the fact that the statement of principle only referred to mono atomic gases escaped the idiots attention.
———-
The question is, can this dissipative cooling effect be used to do something highly useful like increase the Earth’s average surface temperature? This is like an intelligence test for engineers.
————
I would agree with the application of that intelligence test. Seems like some engineers would fail that test.
michael hart said on October 12, 2012 at 5:47 pm:
Do I detect the smell of burning martyr?
I love the smell of climate martyr in the morning.
Smells like… victory.
Gee, Dr. T, ya think the fact that there’s been no observable global warming for over a decade now, while at the same time the US has run $1T yearly decits 4 years in row. . . .maybe. . . .just maybe. . . meant Congress quite reasonably decided there are more important fish to fry just now?
”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work,” Professor Trenberth said.
This is pinko ‘science’ speak. Just as Lenin said, “Language is to be used to shape reality, not report it;” pinko ‘science’ says, “Numbers are to be used to shape reality, not report it.” And thus we have computer models telling us what ‘reality’ shoud be.
As a graduate (albeit about 10 years earlier) of the same high school (Linwood) and university (Canterbury) that Kevin Trenberth attended, I would like to say that I think that he is an embarrassment to his school, his university, his city of origin, his country (New Zealand), and most of all, to science. He has become a poster boy for all that is wrong with science in general and climate science in particular. I can understand how a graduate of an obscure university in a small country got seduced by the apparent glamor of the early AGW movement. The delusion and corruption have now become so pervasive and normalized that those involved in it remain blissfully unaware of the level to which they have sunk. The mainstream news media, wallowing in its scientific ignorance and leftist prejudice, bear a heavy responsibility for this situation. The truth is that Trenberth is a third-rate scientist from a small country, who has made it to the top of his “profession” in the U.S.. Unfortunately for him, and the rest of the world, this “profession” has turned out to be a stinking dung-heap that history will eventually view with all of the contempt it so richly deserves. It’s a travesty that the country that produced Ernest Rutherford and William Pickering, among others, has had its reputation sullied by this pathetic man.
Jackbill