kevin trenberth MAY know science but to ask him to review this interdisciplinary assessment is a joke played on readers by Science's editors. scientists are angry because they are losing control of the climate issues to other disciplines and NGOs. I think i will write a review of the climate models and i wonder if Science will print it!]You don't expect to pick up Science magazine and read an article that is chock full of fabrications and errors. Yet, that is exactly what you'll find in Kevin Trenberth's review of The Climate Fix, which appears in this week's issue.
It is of course more than a little interesting that Science saw fit to ask one of my most vocal critics to review the book. Trenberth has been on the losing side of debates with me over hurricanes and disasters for many years. But even so, I am quite used to the hardball nature of climate politics, and that reviewer choice by Science goes with the territory. It says a lot about Science. Trenberth's rambling and unhinged review is also not unexpected. What is absolute unacceptable is that Trenberth makes a large number of factual mistakes in the piece, misrepresenting the book.
Science should publish a set of corrections. Here is a list of Trenberth's many factual errors:
1. TRENBERTH: "An example that he might have mentioned, but does not, is President George W. Bush's 2001 rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that it would hurt the economy. "
REALITY: Actually, Pielke discusses Bush's rejection of Kyoto on pp. 39 and 442. TRENBERTH: "Pielke treats economic and environmental gains as mutually exclusive"
REALITY: Not so. From p. 50, "[A]ction to achieve environmental goals will have to be fully compatible with the desire of people around the world to meet economic goals. There will be no other way."3. TRENBERTH: "Pielke does not address the international lobbying for economic advantage inherent in the policy negotiations. "
REALITY: Wrong again. The international economics of the climate debate are discussed on pp. 59, 65, 109, 219, 231, and 233 and are a theme throughout.4. TRENBERTH: "He objects to Working Group III's favoring of mitigation (which is, after all, its mission) while ignoring Working Group II (whose mission is adaptation)."
REALITY: Again, not so. Chapter 5 is about the balance between mitigation and adaptation in international policy and discusses both IPCC WG II and WG III (see pp. 153-155). What Pielke objects to is defining adaptation as the consequences of failed mitigation.5. TRENBERTH: "His claims that “the science of climate change becomes irrevocably politicized” because “[s]cience that suggested large climatic impacts on Russia was used to support arguments for Russia's participation in the [Kyoto] protocol”—as if there would be no such impacts and Russia would be a “winner”—look downright silly given the record-breaking drought, heat waves, and wildfires in Russia this past summer."
REALITY: Egregious misrepresentation. Trenberth selectively uses half of a quote to imply that Pielke was making a claim that he did not. The part left out by Trenberth (p. 156) was the counterpoint -- specifically that science that suggested few impacts on Russia was used in similar fashion by advocates to argue against the Kyoto Protocol. Pielke concludes, "In this manner, the science of climate change becomes irreovocably politiciized , as partisans on either side of the debate selectively array bits of science that best support their position."6. TRENBERTH: "Pielke stresses economic data and dismisses the importance of loss of life."
REALITY: Wrong again. Pielke discusses loss of life related to climate change on pp. 176-1787. TRENBERTH: "Geoengineering is also dealt with by Pielke, but only briefly."
REALITY Not so. Pielke devotes an entire chapter to geoengineering (Chapter 5).8. TRENBERTH: "[Pielke] does not address the practicality of storing all of the carbon dioxide."
REALITY: Again, wrong. Pielke addresses the practicality of carbon dioxide storage on pp. 133-134And even with all these errors and false claims, Trenberth concludes that the book is on the right track:
"[P]rogressively decarbonizing the economy and adopting an approach of building more resiliency to climate events would be good steps in the right direction"Anyone who has read The Climate Fix should also read Trenberth's review, as they will learn something about Science magazine and a part of climate science community. As is said, politics ain't beanbag, and climate politics are no different.
22 comments:
You're incredibly tolerant of this kind of thing. You actually wonder if he did more than skim the book and write a diatribe.
Will you write to Science with these points?
I should add that Science's capsule summary is also highly misleading (I assume this was written by Science and not Trenberth):
"Assigning climate scientists much of the blame for the failure to adequately address the challenges posed by climate change, Pielke argues that we should focus on adapting to the potential shifts."
Um, no and no.
-1-sien
Not sure what choice I have ;-)
I did write to Science, and I have asked if they will be publishing a set of corrections.
"You don't expect to pick up Science magazine and read an article that is chock full of fabrications and errors."
I do.
Roger- As you are finding, there is not an external accountability mechanism for quality in such journals as Science and Nature (or others). Even if you overlook the well-documented issues with peer review, and argue that peer review ensures quality, that still does not cover the sections that are not peer-reviewed.
Scientists are human, editors of science journals are human, and as Lord Acton said "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Roger,
I think a lot of the vitriol displayed by many participants in climate change discussions (and evident in this exchange) arises from the casual mixing of actual quotes or points made by one side with the other sides' rhetorical interpretation of said points. Examples are evident in both Trenberth's review snippets (whole review is behind a pay wall) and in your response here. Neither side is listening to the others' points for validity, they are each trying to score debate points. For a single example of this behavior by you, I point to #6 from above. Trenberth's observation is quite correct, you do throughout the Climate Fix rely on economic GDP as a crucial part of all of your discussions and analysis, and your 'Iron Law' points to limits of economics, not human or ecosystem health or well-being (of which 'loss of life' would be importantly included). Rather than substantively addressing this point, you cite in defense two pages of (appropriately) critical analysis of WHO AGW disease numbers to dismissively rebut a much wider-ranging critique of your method. Framing Trenberth's substantive criticism in this as a 'factual error' that deserves to be corrected (based on 2 pages of disease statistics critique) seems to be intentionally missing the point and definitely does not serve to advance the discussion. This whole exchange seems to me to be an example of the wider issue of polarization of political discussions, which you are guilty of participating in periodically, mostly in the blogging setting. You are not alone in this, nor the most egregious practitioner, but with this post you are throwing stones from a glass house. Finally, the presumptuousness evident in your 3rd-person framing of your response (TRENBERTH/REALITY) undermines your points in my eyes. I thought TCF was definitely worth the read, with the most significant and alarming points related to highlighting the difficulty of decarbonization, but the assertion and centrality of the 'iron law of climate policy' and its vagueness in relation to testability and scale leave TCF open to valid critiques, including that a small carbon tax will sufficiently protect human well-being. Titling this post "Fabrications in Science", when in fact it is a rebuttal of a critical review, is further evidence that the participants in this discussion are ideologically polarized from the outset.
Finally, I am glad you are still posting on the climate change issue. While I disagree with some of your perspectives, you provide important cautionary assessments which need to be understood by all decision-makers, of which we all are one class.
This is despicable and you have my utmost respect and support, even if it is such an amazingly unimportant one ;).
It seems that book reviews are equally and qualitatively peer review as AGW pronouncements.
;)
"Not sure what choice I have ;-)"
Make some calls to become a panel member on one of the congressional climate hearings in 2011. Presenting your ideas in a forum that would influence policy makers directly would be a nice way of thumbing your nose at Trenberth IMO. Good luck.
The only way that I can see anyone writing a review like this is if they are one of the following:
a) Lazy to the point of dereliction of their duty to write the review.
b) Intellectually incapable of completing the review.
c) Deliberately distorted the review.
None of these options are good ones for Science or the reviewer.
"You don't expect to pick up Science magazine and read an article that is chock full of fabrications and errors."
I didn't until global warming came along. S. McIntyre has detailed sufficient editorial shenanigans at both Science and Nature to enlighten me.
h/t to Stan above.
I would add that Trenberth should have at least have mentioned his participation in the Climategate emails in the section of the review where he dismisses their importance.
I have finally read the book. I agree it's unfairly reviewed here. On the other hand, I think the review is both highly predictable and sadly out-of-touch. Trenberth, like most of the rest of his generation of climate scientists, does not realize how decisively Cap'n Trade's ship has sailed. He's fighting the last war.
And what was that whole thing with Kintisch? Positively wierd.
I am sure he cringed at least a little bit
Casey451 sends in this comment:
"As a lay person on this topic, I would be tremendously interested in the names of people the readers, and author, of this blog would like to see review "The Climate Fix". My own perverse suggestion is Joe Romm"
If Romm or anyone else wants to review the book, I will be happy to publish that review here. Criticism is welcomed, fabrications are not ;-)
I'm with Stan.
There aren't any publications left where one doesn't need to put on their BS protectors.
"You don't expect to pick up Science magazine and read an article that is chock full of fabrications and errors."
Having read IPCC chapter 3, I would expect anything written by Trenberth to be chock full of fabrications and errors.
I laughed outloud when I read Trenberth's "Certain sections of Pielke's book contain a lot of spin."
Trenberth is simply doing what mainstream climate scientists seem to do well and often:
Mislead, misinform and mis-communicate in order to sell an agenda.
OT
Listening to RPJ on Dennis Prager's show as I type! WTG on this great interview!
Is this available to listen to? Or has someone written a summary of the interview?
You'll have to excuse me if I thought Trenberth's review was so bad that it was laugh-out-loud hillarious.
I searched all over the show and station websites with no luck finding either the audio or the transcript. The Dennis Prager Show podcast is only available via paid subscription.I was lucky to catch it live. Occasionally, an episode is available on the American Conservative University podcast, which is free through iTunes. If the interview with RPJ eventually is available there, I'll give a heads up.
So who's Trenberth in this big joke? Gollum? Sauron?
Post a Comment