the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Real Science?

Posted by Jeff Id on December 2, 2011

WUWT (a.k.a. the center of the internet) has a post on Trenberth stating that a hurricane disaster non-believer should be fired.   We have to keep the free- thinking scientists in line with the message after all.

Here is a section of the post:

I responded to his earlier message in a fairly low key fashion. I think he
has behaved irresponsibly and ought to be fired by NOAA for not have an openenough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting
hurricanes. I am quickly becoming outraged by this and I hope it backfires on
him!!!!
Kevin
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Martin Manning wrote:
> Dear Phil and Kevin
>
> Today Susan received a copy of some correspondence between Chris Landsea and Dr Pachauri regarding coverage of hurricanes and global warming by the IPCC. Although we were aware that Dr Landsea was raising the issue
> generally, we were not aware of the approach to Dr Pachauri and it is
> perhaps unfortunate that this was not referred to Susan.
>
> However, Susan would now like to consider a further appropriate response to
> Dr Landsea and she has asked me to ask you to wait for that before you
> consider any possible response of your own (assuming that you have seen the
> correspondence anyway?).
>
> Thanks
> Martin
>
> –
> Dr Martin R Manning

And a relevant graph by Ryan Maue below.  Note the lack of hurricane strength in recent years.

I’m not sure what the scientists are supposed to believe in but there is this excellent post by Dr. Spencer on the IPCC which states the problems clearly:

The IPCC’s Bias

In the case of global warming research, the alternative (non-consensus) hypothesis that some or most of the climate change we have observed is natural is the one that the IPCC must avoid at all cost. This is why the Hockey Stick was so prized: it was hailed as evidence that humans, not Nature, rule over climate change.

The Climategate 2.0 e-mails show how entrenched this bias has become among the handful of scientists who have been the most willing participants and supporters of The Cause. These scientists only rose to the top because they were willing to actively promote the IPCC’s message with their particular fields of research.

Unfortunately, there is no way to “fix” the IPCC, and there never was. The reason is that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.

Climate science is ill because of money and politics.  The only true cure is to remove the cause.


19 Responses to “Real Science?”

  1. zerored78 said

    None of this is new to anyone reading this blog. Just a reminder that no one, no matter how qualified, is allowed to interfere with The Cause(TM). It appears that this email is from the lead up to Dr. Landsea withdrawing from the IPCC in 2005. The nerve of these people amaze me. I think Landsea was with the HRD at the time of this e-mail and is now the Science and Operation Officer for the NHC. He’s spent most of his career researching seasonal forecasting and the reasons for the yearly and decadal variability in the number, strengths, and paths of tropical cyclones. There probably isn’t a man on the planet more qualified to have an opinion on AGW’s impact on hurricanes. He certainly far more qualified than the people criticizing him. He’s never questioned the measurements of rising temperatures. He simply had the gall to point out the fact that the statistics then (and now) did not support the claims that AGW was causing more or stronger cyclones. Then had the courage to refuse to stay silent when Trenberth was making claims to the media about the influence of AGW on hurricanes that were unsupported by the science, much of which Chris Landsea co-authored. Since it doesn’t fit in with “The Cause”(TM) that translates to “not have[ing] an open enough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting hurricanes.”

    Anyone interested in his modern stance can read here:

    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/index.html

    To me it’s the most reasonable representation of the current science on the issue and it correctly represents how much uncertainty there is in any conclusion with the limited information we have.

  2. M. Simon said

    Well there are quite a few places that politics needs to be killed. The odds of that are slim and none.

    That said, perhaps an occasional public hanging would be seminal.

  3. hunter said

    Trenberth is hoisted by his own petard- his own big mouth. and not just here but elsewhere.
    His faux recasting of the null, his pose as an objective hard worker, are all shown to be false by his own actions over time.
    By the way, Donna Laframboise documents this act of integrity by Dr. Landsea and the deliberate corrupt attitude by the ‘team’ / IPCC very well in her book.

  4. kim said

    Almost three years ago I had the pleasure of passing around Ryan Maue’s graph of Accumulated Cyclone Energy at a gathering discussing Chris Mooney’s ‘Storm World’, presided over by a cloud modeller.

    I used to have to add more to the story.
    =====================

  5. kim said

    Addendum, er correction, May of ’09.
    =========

  6. Thank you for the information, Jeff.

    Intolerance and other personal defects in “players on the stage of life” [1] produce much of the conflict that plagues the scientific community and the entire world today. I accept and appreciate that simple truth, but I still do not control the “stage of life” nor my assigned role on it.

    Yesterday a friend gave me sage advice to “stop this shrill output, which does absolutely nothing to enhance your stature as a scientist” and “return to scholarly production.”

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/data-libertarianism/#comment-145631

    This friend from a major university was apparently referring to conclusions reported on the “Deep roots of the global climate (1971-2011)” [2] and the public discussion of that information on Twitter [3].

    Last night my older brother also send a photograph of my mother, brother and me taken in early 1940 when I was 3.5 years old. I had apparently just been informed that my mother was not going to continue treatment for TB and would probably die soon. My brother was seven years old and looked very sad. (My mother died about three months later,) but the photograph shows the role I would play on the stage of life for the next seventy years: I was damn mad!

    Today, I am still damn mad that science – my refuge from an insane world – was corrupted by political influence that still today promotes absolutely false information about the origin, composition and source of energy that powers the Sun and its dominant influence on our daily lives including earth’s ever-changing climate [4].

    I do not know how this drama of life will end, but I am rather certain that the angry young boy shown on his mother’s lap in the 1940 photograph will not forsake basic principles of science to advance his “stature as a scientist.”

    References:

    1. “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages.” – Shakespeare
    http://www.artofeurope.com/shakespeare/sha9.htm

    2. “Deep roots of the global climate (1971-2011)”
    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf

    3.”Propaganda designed to unite nations against an imaginary common enemy – global climate change” http://twitter.com/#%21/wmiddelkoop/status/142147708856184832

    4. “Neutron repulsion”, The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011)
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

  7. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Here is the wired thing: If climate science ever wants a shred I credibility, a very reasonable first step is stating clearly that thereiis no credible evidence that tropical storms have become more requent or more intense on average,

    Will the practitioners of climate science step up to face reality and admit the obvious, or will they endlessly claim that stopical storms ‘may’ become more violent and more frequent! This is an important test, and the response may well define whether or not climate science chooses to descend to irrelevance or maintain a shread of credibility.

  8. Kenneth Fritsch said

    “Will the practitioners of climate science step up to face reality and admit the obvious, or will they endlessly claim that tropical storms ‘may’ become more violent and more frequent! This is an important test, and the response may well define whether or not climate science chooses to descend to irrelevance or maintain a shred of credibility.”

    SteveF, that would be an excellent question to pose to Judith Curry, who got a lot of media attention for here proclamations a few years back on projecting a rather accelerated tropical storm frequency and intensity and who is now apparently an apostate of the consensus.

    Further I would think that we have good evidence that Trenberth is a bit of a hothead. That does not mean that hotheadiness reflects on his work, but one has to wonder why some of these scientists get so worked about non consensus views on AGW.

  9. […] Real Science? Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

  10. Kan said

    #8 They get worked up because it makes getting funding that much harder. If everybody agrees, then the review of the proposals is not as stringent.

  11. Kenneth Fritsch said

    “#8 They get worked up because it makes getting funding that much harder. If everybody agrees, then the review of the proposals is not as stringent.”

    On the other hand, if the science is settled and we have this huge consensus on AGW and its effects vis a vis government attempts at mitigation, should not that make it more difficult to obtain funding merely to gild the lily. I remember an exchange by posters and SteveM at CA with Gavin Schmidt and Schmidt wanting to apparently have it both ways, i.e. state there is this great consensus on AGW but at the same time allude to work yet to be done in climate science. The science is settled but not sufficiently gilded.

    Actually my view on why they get so worked up is related to their emotional attachment to their advocacy position. That attachment alone would not necessarily affect their science but in some cases it obviously has.

  12. Brian H said

    Zerored;
    Excellent article by Landsea. Here’s a money graphic:

    A decline since 1880 from 7 to 6 per year.

  13. Brian H said

    I see the HTML didn’t work. Here’s the raw URL:

  14. AMac said

    Kenneth Fritsch #11

    > my view on why they get so worked up is related to their emotional attachment to their advocacy position.

    Relevant to that point, the Dec. 2, 2011 WSJ had a front-page article, “Scientists’ Elusive Goal: Reproducing Study Results.” It laid out the inability of biomedical researchers to duplicate published results, including important findings in high-impact peer-reviewed journals. Link, will rot in about a week.

    In September 2011, scientists at Bayer published their own study in “Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.” Of their attempts to replicate results of 67 studies:

    21% were fully replicated
    12% were partially replicated
    64% were not replicated
    3%, criteria not applicable

    There are clear distinctions to be made between the type of work done in biomedical labs and for clinical trials, and that done to advance climate science. However, I think the problems described in the article are likely worse when it comes to climatology. For one thing, medical researchers are grappling with understanding the issues’ root causes, and trying to address them. Quite a contrast with the obstinate ignorance of the Mainstream climate change leaders, and their advocates.

  15. Kenneth Fritsch said

    “Excellent article by Landsea. Here’s a money graphic:”

    That article shows rather conclusively that Landsea is not a firebrand denialist and agrees that we have experienced AGW with noted uncertainties to extent. He also does not deny that, in the future and given continued warming, hurricanes could well increase in intensity (not by much) and also decrease in frequency. His views are also held by other climate scientists working thid field. I would think based on his stated views that Trenbreth’s overreaction to Lansea must stem from an advocacy position more founded in the alarmist camp – or perhaps simply a lack of knowledge to the specialized field of tropical storms.

  16. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    #15,
    Seems to me that Trenbreth’s reaction is remarkably consistent WRT any statement by a climate scientist which down-plays the urgency/certainty of pending CAGW, since this detracts from the need for immediate draconian public action. His advocy for immediate public action is comparable to Michael Mann and James Hansen…… He just has not gotten as much attention as those two. IMO, these advocates are ill equipped to administer anything beyond their own research. I find it remarkable they hold administrative positions, where their advocacy can (and almost certainly does) impact a wide range of research projects.

  17. Kan said

    Kenneth –

    “On the other hand, if the science is settled and we have this huge consensus on AGW and its effects vis a vis government attempts at mitigation, …”

    Ah, but we do not understand the total “effects” of the proven AGW . This is where Government based funding becomes easier to get.

    I propose to study how the proven AGW is affecting the migration patterns of the frostbit weevil wooser. This has important implications as the frostbit weevil wooser is a dietary staple for the endangered ringnecked duck.

    Who could argue with that? I included AGW and endangered species together to get a two-fer guilt trip🙂

    small print – all animals used in this example are imaginary and are presented for demonstration purposes only.

  18. Bill Illis said

    It is interesting that just a few years after this incident, the science moved off the position that hurricane numbers and hurricane strength would increase with global warming (and/or simple increasing CO2).

    Obviously, the fact that the actual observations of hurricanes showed a decline over the following years helped move this acceptance/position change along. (And it is a little harder than other aspects of the climate for the pro-side to merely “adjust” the hurricane data into an artificial increase).

    But Landsea taking a stand and putting his career on the line certainly helped correct a small part of the field that was going astray. Too bad there isn’t more examples and thanks to Chris for being a real scientist.

  19. best headphones for the running machine…

    […]Real Science? « the Air Vent[…]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: