Chris Landsea, chief scientist at the National Hurricane Center, resigned from the IPCC in 2005. He objected to the poor science and politics behind the IPCC hurricane claims.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
and what peer reviewed literature has he objected to?
the relevant quote, it seems to me is this.
“then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings … this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.”
in fact this seems to me to support the idea that the actual science is valid, it is scientists making statements inappropriately cloaked in authority that he objects to.
As such this is a perfectly valid statement and action to take.
You are getting boring and repetitious.
That’s why I tell him not to quit his day job.
and you are continuing to avoid actually responding to what I actually write.
At least SUYTS and Mike occasionally respond with explanations that are sometimes relevant to my comments.
Your comments are totally irrelevant Tony.
How is my pointing out the actual key points he makes”irrelevant”.
You don’t think it is relevant whether or not Landsea supports that peer reviewed science?
They are key points only to you and you bunch. You have made them that way.
But when a peer reviewed work showing global warming computer models are wrong is published suddenly peer review is flawed.
You guys have created a pretend world to live in. Double standards, moving goal lines, fabrication “trick”s. That’s “global warming” science.
Amino,
unless you are specific I cannot comment on your assertions. maybe you are referring to the one well known article by Soons and Baliunus. If that is the one then I have already explained that situation a few times here, without any response regarding the actual facts of that case from any of the usual suspects here. I can repeat them if you want.
I think you should take a lesson and read the entire link and the email file that can be downloaded.
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/ipcc-correspondence.pdf
This is just a glimpse into the corruption and distortion that are the rule in climate quackery.
It was pretty obvious what Landsea was upset about.
And I just read the email, and it confirms exactly what I said in my original email.
He says that Trenbeth was saying things that were not consistent with the peer reviewed literature. and he was using the authority of the IPCC to give his claims credence. I commend his actions.
Again the KEY quote ” Where is the science, the REFEREED publications, that substantiate these pronouncements.”
does that sound familiar to anyone here?
WHY when you are arguing with me, do you post a link where the person substantiates exactly what I said to begin with?
Do you even know what Trenberth was saying that upset Dr. Landsea?
Tony :
If a pronouncement is “far outside current scientific understandings” how the heck does that support the idea that “the actual science is valid”?
Surely the whole point that Chris Landsea (who presumably knows a lot more than you or I) is making, is that we don’t yet know whether the science is valid or not.
Surely the whole point that Landsea is making is that climate science is not able to make scientifically valid correlations between hurricane prevalence or intensity based on ACC models. And he is upset that Trenbeth was making assertions that the peer reviewed literature did not support.
Trenberth is not a hurricane researcher.
Dr. Landsea has since then been proven correct.
The IPCC was wrong and so were many others who in the wake of a single giant hurricane season,could not resist babbling that this was evidence of global warming.
Trenberth was making statements that went OUTSIDE the confines of the IPCC report on the subject.
maybe part of our misunderstanding with tony is that none of the peer reviewed literature supports the claims of CAGW.
Steven keeps disproving every press release and statement spewed forth by the ‘climate science’ propaganda machine, while tony squawks ‘peer review’ ‘peer review’
the disconnect being between the science by press release screaming about CAGW, and the actual peer review science which does not actually support CAGW
🙂
Peter,
then there is no problem, the peer review process is working and no scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals believe in ACC.
it is just the media and outcast scientists who are trying to prevent real scientists from explaining the truth?
something doesn’t quite seem right with that picture.
An honest man? At the National Hurricane Center? Truly amazing!
I love his name! Chris LandSea. 🙂
Of course, the reason this matters is that CAGW alarmists like Trenberth regularly claim that one of the catastrophes which CAGW will cause is much more frequent and destructive hurricanes. It turns out that (like the fear of dramatic sea level rise), this fear is without foundation. LandSea‘s complaint was that Trenberth and the IPCC have proved that they are more interested in sounding the alarm than in its scientific validity.
Which is why I think basing the science on the peer review process is the way to go.
No one here seems to agree with me.
The IPCC is about the politics and not the science. The researchers supporting the IPCC position base their beliefs on fantasy not science. That means there is no scientific reports to be peer reviewed. There are lots of fairy tales to be published after a Pal Review.
Funny thing about scientists in the IPCC—some of them are “deniers”.
TonyD:
Climate science is about understanding climate and how it works. The IPCC and the current Peer Reviewed research process is not about climate science but about finding proof to support humans are the leading cause of Climate Change. The IPCC downplays natural variability and everything has to be getting worse because of human induced climate change. It is the claim: We each have to decide if we are going to be Effective or Honest in our reports. We have to show Disasters for people to listen!
Chris Landsea is a scientist and did not want to be associated with the output of climatologists that are promoting AGW by downplaying natural causes and exaggerating outcomes when the science does not support the exaggerations.
Himalaya Glaciers will be gone by 2035 and anything that shows something different must be VooDoo science!
I knew people with Down’s syndrome that were about the same mental level as you try to project in your writings!
Mike,
you start out so reasonably. What you say is a rational consistent argument and then it goes south for some bizarre reason.
The himalayan glaciers, the one genuine totally asinine objective mistake in the IPCC report. Trumpeted all over the media as proof that climate change had accelerated and scientists were predicting mean global temps were going to increase 15°C in the next 25 years. That is the only way all those glaciers could disappear by then. It was a MISTAKE. an obvious one and one no one could possible believe such a claim. It was also likely a typo.
Of course MAYBE that is why hansen said manhattan would be under water. Some told him about the Himalayays, and he made the appropriate extrapolations.
And I am rather hurt that are attacking my condition. I have to dictate through the slobber for people to type my comments. I do smile a lot though!
has it occurred to ANYONE here that I am not terribly bothered by the personal insults? Or, I bet this hasn’t occurred to you. Maybe, I get off on it!
one genuine totally asinine objective mistake in the IPCC report
you are a comedian….nearly the entire report is fabricated.
I haven’t heard that one Peter,
I just keep hearing over and over again about Himalayas, Netherlands, and Amazon. it is like a long techno mp3.
so again if the entire report is fabricated then the massive fraud involved cannot be kept from being exposed by scientists in the related fields with no financial interest. Since apparently climate science is the one field that corrupts almost the entire cohort of people involved in it.
Like those WMDs in Iraq which Bill Clinton and the UN starved 500,000 children over.
that is exactly what happened tony
maybe i exxagerated…only 30%
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/the-ipcc-5600-small-white-lies/
and while there may be some actual science in the rest, it is unfortunately buried behind the summary for policy makers written by ben santer, and disowned by countless actual scientists.
Actually Steve, this is something I know about, so you should tread a little more carefully here.
Iraq DID have WMD’s during Clinton’s term. Hussein got rid of them by about ’95, But Clinton did not like the idea of lifting sanctions. Imagine the hornets nest THAT would have caused. So he just kept bombing them and sanctions and acting tough like dems think they have to so they aren’t called traitors (they are anyway, so I don’t know why dems still bother with that).
But it was Bush’s war and his amazing propaganda machine that allowed it and killed hundreds of thousands fo iraqi’s displaced about 5 million, and caused , what is it now , oh yes, 7 years of turmoil.
Just think. None of that would have happened if, Reagan had actually stood up to Hussein, instead of lauding him as a bulwark against extremism and tacitly supporting his little incursion into Iran. And if Bush 1 had actually told him seriously he would get his clock cleaned if he went into Kuwait.
There would still be a ruthless autocratic dictator who terrorized the country. But it would not be a third world country and there would be an Iraqi middle class with a decent professional sector and fairly modern society.
Instead religious hatred still dominated much of the country and the government is largely supporters of Iran, and Afghanistan AND Iraq AND Pakistan are unstable with the vast majority of the populations hating the US.
So that is why he starved another 250K children until 2000, because they gave up their WMDs in 1995?
But he doesn’t want sea level to rise one mm in the Maldives. Dems are such humanitarians. Maybe they can carbon tax a few million people to death.
hey tony did you get all my links? answers, point by point for few anyways
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/aggie-joke-punch-line/#comment-20246
come on you guys there is no difference between democrats and republicans it is a waste of time typing it in
with both we will get more debt, and more war.
CAGW is just another scam along with the rest
Yup, that is why he starved this people because he couldn’t afford to look like a wimp.
I think he doesn’t want sea levels to rise 2 feet or more. The one millimeter, I am just pulling this out of my ass, he might be OK with.
Peter,
NO I did NOT get your links. just saw it now
Thank you that is a lot of material.
TonyD:
Peter beat me to the comment about the quality of the IPCC reports. I used the most obvious example of the entire IPCC process that best defines it. The examples of fairy tales are throughout the report. I did not bring up the Hurricane, Paleo, model, surface temperature chapters as I did not think that was required.
It was not a Typo! That has already been proven using historical references that traced the claim back in time. The originator of the claim was!!!!!!! Now get this!!!!!! A TERI environmental advocate researcher! Of course there were the well researched claims by the tour guides in travel brochures and statements found in WWF pamphlets, to name a few more.
And the 15°C temp increases by 2035.?Were they in the report too. Come on, this was a mistake that was brought up by a supporter of ACC, there was almost no mention of this before it was made to be this huge deal for propaganda purposes, and there is absolutely no conceivable way anyone who knew anything about Glaciers or climate change could believe something like that. it is absolutely ridiculous on the face of it.
My understanding was that this was in the grey literature and was just plucked from a WWF article, which in turn was based on a comment by a glaciologist a long time ago, and was never verified, and there have been no scientific papers that have ever made that claim. But we all know that anything a climate scientist says to a journalist is immediately sacrosanct and can be used ad infinitum to prove that ACC is a crazy theory.
There’s no news like old news!
Climate models are good for at least 100 years, but 2005 is ancient history. The IPCC is totally different now.
There are some serious scientists (our moderator is one) that have shown courage and bucked the tide when it wasn’t at all the “thing to do”. The truth is starting to win out, even in the establishment science community.
Tony D,
Which part of this don’t you understand?
“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. “
which part of “I commend his actions ” do YOU not understand.
Please try to read what I actually write.
here is my full quote to save you the trouble of actually reading this thread
“He says that Trenbeth was saying things that were not consistent with the peer reviewed literature. and he was using the authority of the IPCC to give his claims credence. I commend his actions.
So you see I SUPPORTED Landsea’s position.
But if you only want to read that part and not the part that talks about basing the science on the peer review process. that is of course your right.
I have repeatedly, over and over again, many times over, trying to hammer the point home to the point of ad neaseum SAID. anyone who makes claims that are not supported by the actual peer reviewed science should be confronted with that.