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
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?).
> 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.