Thursday, October 11, 2012

Kevin Trenberth: too bureaucratic IPCC sucks

Alarmist afraid IPCC AR5 won't be alarming enough

The Sydney Morning Herald just (=tomorrow, due to the time zones) published an interesting report on Kevin Trenberth's mood in the IPCC,
Climate scientist loses faith in the IPCC.
He thinks that there are too many people now, too much "second-tier science", and it's too bureaucratic.

You must agree that Kevin Trenberth must be pretty slow because he hasn't previously noticed that there were too many people in the IPCC – you know, those "2,500 experts" – who represented second-tier science – you know, it's a climate catastrophe science, the world's least credible scientific discipline after astrology and homeopathy, and most of the members of the IPCC haven't even been researchers in this inferior discipline but government officials and activists with superficial links to science – and that the IPCC has always been about bureaucracy, the barriers in Pachauri's office, Greenpeace, WWF, and other bureaucratic headquarters (including the gang of nasty bullies around Phil Jones and Michael Mann) that have so far prevented any genuine climate scientist from materially influencing the content of the IPCC reports and their summaries in particular which is why the IPCC has so far been unable to even state the obvious, namely that there exists no scientific evidence suggesting a significant climate threat.

So if these were the real reasons, you would be really, really slow, Mr Trenberth. However, the Australian newspaper also tells us what the actual reason why the Gentleman has "lots his faith" is.

The revealing passage is this one:
KT: There are more people, it's more diffuse, it's harder to gain a consensus - quite frankly I find the whole process very depressing. The science is solid, but with a larger group it's harder to reach a consensus, and updates every six years are just too slow. After the fifth assessment, we should push on with a different format.
Well, within a smaller group of activists and corrupt scientists who really created the shameful body, it was easy to reach a consensus with Greenpeace, WWF, and other whackos and scum (that constituted most of those "2,500 experts") and claim that their crackpot claims about the climate represent the "consensus".

But when a more representative sample of climate scientists apparently got the green card to join the process – after some scandals that forced the formerly hardcore Stalinist organization to open a little bit – it's suddenly hard to prove that 97 percent of the climate scientists back the crackpot IPCC claims, isn't it, Mr Trenberth? A group of hardcore alarmists whom we know from the Climategate and who constantly pump pseudoscientific misconceptions to the media (just 2 days ago, Trenberth promoted the CO2-caused extreme weather meme) is irritated because they apparently couldn't keep a complete control over the IPCC so they expect a less hardcore alarmist (="blander", in KT's words) IPCC AR5 report. Why don't you use the right words?

The article in the Australian newspapers demagogically avoids the term "fucked-up corrupt asshole" and instead calls Trenberth a "bruised survivor of the Climategate". They quote him as saying that there are no important new results to be revealed by the IPCC and that his semi-criminal activity unmasked by the Climategate has shifted most of the interested laymen, the broader scientific public, as well as politicians closer to the camp of skeptics.


  1. Lumo - Off topic

    Would you care to comment on the two papers on dijet resonnances from the two big expirements at Cern? I read about it on another physics blog (something about a survivor's diary). In the list of possible objects he said they could be there was a convenient absence of supersymmetry.

  2. Hi Physics Junkie, I've seen the papers and they show that up to 4 TeV, i.e. pretty much up to the center-of-mass energy at the LHC now, there are now dijet resonances. This excludes various exotic things but has nothing to do with conventional models of supersymmetry that can't display themselves via (any) resonances because the new particles are pair-created. That's also why Tommaso Dorigo's article

    doesn't contain the word "supersymmetry" at all. You made it up. Or maybe you confused it with another text by him

    where he's proud he's been acknowledged in a new SUSY paper by Nanopoulos et al. It's indeed good for him. Nanopoulos et al. show an intriguing picture in which their model with flippons is right but they still don't have any real evidence that it's better than the Standard Model - the Standard Model is just fine, close to the median expectations, which means that the improvement done by their model is overfitting (they're happy about fitting some noise).

    Incidentally, I think that Tommaso's comments about the competition between the CMS and ATLAS may be intriguing but they're silly, too. There's no real competition with a winner here. The papers are almost the same and inevitable differences in the strength of signals or limits of order 10% are partly due to different methods, partly due to pure luck. It's silly to praise one detector for getting stronger limits a little bit - it was most likely due to flukes, and if the flukes were "really lucky for the detector", the very strong limits could turn out to be wrong, so there's nothing to celebrate here.

    If two detectors are really "distinguishably strong", there's no room for genuine competition, either. For example, every major LHC detector would surely beat every detector at the Tevatron today. ;-)

  3. In defense of the indefensible Dr. Trenberth - please check your gmail for a message from him dated July 13. He is the only one UCAR guy who ever told me anything.

  4. Yup, I read that. From that reply from him, one couldn't quite determine what kind of a zealot he is. Still, you shouldn't overestimate the importance of one of the devils-in-chief speaking to you in person. If you've communicated with a larger number of them, like myself, you would be less grateful for such a contact. ;-)

  5. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't gluinos form resonnances since their spin 1/2 and need to form two particle systems to be color neutral?

  6. Huh, TD is proud about being acknowledged in a SUSY paper ... ?!

    From his nothing but scornful comments I'd rather expected him to be annoyed about such a thing :-/

  7. Dear Physics Junkie, I don't have to correct you because you are just asking a question.

    The answer is No, of course. Pairs of gluinos or any groups of two or more free particles can't "form resonances" because a resonance is, by definition, something that has a sharp frequency or energy or invariant mass. But a pair of two (or more) gluinos (or particles) may have any mass starting from 2.mass(gluino) and going all the way to infinity, so it's just not a resonance.

  8. KT: "...The science is solid, but with a larger group it's harder to reach a consensus..."
    Science has nothing to do with consensus but with proved facts. An example of solid science is Quantum Mechanics, but it is accepted not by consensus but simply because it works, only crackpots don't accept QM.

  9. "...the world's less credible scientific discipline after astrology and homeopathy..." 'least credible' would be more correct English

  10. Brian G ValentineOct 13, 2012, 11:21:00 PM

    The problem with so much lying and deceit, Trenberth has convinced himself of his infallibility.

    Demonstrably wrong in nearly everything he has concluded, Trenberth has lost faith in anything that doesn't prove how great he is - and he has reached the point where he blames the IPCC to be part of a vast conspiracy to discredit him.

    There really isn't some "cure" (yet) for somatic paranoid schizophrenia and accompanying delusions of grandeur