Open Letter to Dr Kevin Trenberth

[marchesarosa]

The Warmists on this board have clearly taken heart from the latest piece of propaganda issuing from one of the Team. Here is what Trenberth said

"Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null
hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence [on the climate]."


Willis Eschenbach responds with a damning indictment of this mindset and intellectual trickery here

Unequivocal Equivocation – an open letter to Dr. Trenberth
wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/15/unequivocal-equivocation/


It is also in pdf format here
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/willis_trenberth_wuwt_essay.pdf

[eamonnshute]

Trenberth:

"Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of “of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming”. "

Eschenbach:

"...the null hypothesis is that human GHG emissions do not significantly affect the climate, that the climate variations are the result of natural processes. This null hypothesis is what Doctor T wants to reverse."

So, a great difference between what Trenberth actually says, and what Escenbach says that he says!

But it is all a matter of obfuscation and playing word games. If anyone wants to show that we are not to blame for climate change, despite all the evidence, then all you have to do is come up with a better, natural explanation. I am not holding my breath.

[marchesarosa]

Believe me, Eamonn, The climate debate is NOT about word games it is about observable phenomena. If we have no reliable observations we have no basis for theorising.

But read Willis's letter. It is an important statement about the philosophy of science apart from anything else. Louise could well learn something from it since it appears she is unacquainted with Popper.

[eamonnshute]

Jan 16, 2011 13:35:54 GMT 1 marchesarosa said:

Believe me, Eamonn, The climate debate is NOT about word games it is about observable phenomena. If we have no reliable observations we have no basis for theorising.

But we have plenty of reliable observations.

But read Willis's letter. It is an important statement about the philosophy of science apart from anything else.

Philosophy bores me stiff. But why not talk about the actual science? Like I said, obfuscation.

[carnyx]

Eammon,

As you clearly are someone who has an interest in the integrity of science, I earnestly request that you read Willis Eschenbach's article.

(And, if you take any exception to it, please post a response on that website; Others including Mr Eschenbach will read it, and you will get a cogent response.)

[eamonnshute]

Jan 16, 2011 14:37:29 GMT 1 carnyx said:

Eammon,

As you clearly are someone who has an interest in the integrity of science, I earnestly request that you read Willis Eschenbach's article.

Why?

[carnyx]

@eammon,

On second thoughts, perhaps it is probably a bit too advanced for your powers of comprehension?

Here is the evidence;

If anyone wants to show that we are not to blame for climate change, despite all the evidence.......

In other words, your argument is;

1. The climate is changing

2. Man's activities cause climate change.

3. Therefore man's activities are the cause of climate change.

A nastry case of Illicit Major ? I suggest a dose of
onegoodmove.org/fallacy/illmaj.htm

For your own good, DO NOT read the Eschenbach article!

[eamonnshute]

Jan 16, 2011 17:01:08 GMT 1 carnyx said:

In other words, your argument is;

1. The climate is changing

2. Man's activities cause climate change.

3. Therefore man's activities are the cause of climate change.

That is not my argument. There are several factors that affect the climate, but when you subtract the effect of all known natural causes there is still a surplus. This surplus can be explained very nicely by human activity, so why not accept it? You don't have to like the fact that we are to blame, but you cannot reasonably deny it.

[marchesarosa]

when you subtract the effect of all known natural causes there is still a surplus.

This statement, Eamonn, makes the gigantic assumption that ALL sources of natural variation are known and the residual can be nothing other than CO2-induced.

Anyone who can seriously make a statement about the natural world to the effect that "EVERYTHING IS KNOWN" is a prat.

[eamonnshute]

Jan 16, 2011 17:55:31 GMT 1 marchesarosa said:

when you subtract the effect of all known natural causes there is still a surplus.

This statement, Eamonn, makes the gigantic assumption that ALL sources of natural variation are known and the residual can be nothing other than CO2-induced.

Anyone who can seriously make a statement about the natural world to the effect that "EVERYTHING IS KNOWN" is a prat.

I said "all KNOWN natural causes...", implying that there could, be some unknown cause. If you think that I said that EVERYTHING IS KNOWN then your comprehension skills are sadly lacking.

But what if there is some unknown cause?
You not only have the problem of finding out what it is, but also of explaining why it just happens to have the same effect as the CO2 is expected to have. Also, you have the problem of explaining why the CO2 actually has negligible effect, despite being a greenhouse gas, and despite the correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration.

[carnyx]

@eammon#7

There are several factors that affect the climate, but when you subtract the effect of all known natural causes there is still a surplus. This surplus can be explained very nicely by human activity

So,

1. Climate change = Knowns + Unknowns

2. Unknowns = Climate change - Knowns

3. Unknowns = Known Anthropic CO2 effect


Therefore, there are no Unknowns.

All is known.

[marchesarosa]

"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. ”

—United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld



I never thought I would be commending Donald Rumsfeld but I really think Eamonn needs to take a lesson from him. Prats leading the prats, in other words.

[eamonnshute]

More obfuscation and tedious word games from carnyx and marchesa.

Which shows that they have nothing of substance to offer.

[rsmith7]

The "substance" on offer is the fact that the warmist "scientists" have corrupted the scientific method and been shown to have done so.

[principled]

OK Eamonn let's take your statement

There are several factors that affect the climate, but when you subtract the effect of all known natural causes there is still a surplus.

as true.
The next issue is surely the value of that anthropogenic (CO2 caused) surplus. Is it 10%..50%..90%.
This is surely crucial to the debate and I suspect is just one of the many unknowns. During the early days of the climate change "debate" it was intimated by the AGW camp that climate change=100% anthropogenic. Following pressure and the intervention of many informed bloggers this "surplus" is now being rolled back. I've read figures of "50% anthropogenic", but I suspect this has no more foundation than someone saying 10%.
So, why is this important? Well, if you're deciding policy then if it's 100% and going to happen tomorrow you are more likely to make hasty decisions, many of which will not resolve the issue they are supposed to deal with (aka CO2 and Wind energy). If you start from a more reasonable base, let's say 50% and twenty years to resolve, the policies are more likely to be thought through and more effective because of that.

So Eamonn, what is your best guess of the value of that "surplus"?
P