Comments on: Team Policy on Acknowledgements

By: Trenberth gets a rebuttal to Spencer and Braswell published: turnaround 1 day | Watts Up With That?

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:00:28 +0000

[...] Trenberth’s presentation to the American Meteorological Society earlier this year (see here here here), Trenberth et al 2011 was not [...]

By: Peter Puusa

Peter Puusa — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:00:54 +0000

I would think, given what I’ve read recently, that Trenberth may now be in danger of being sued for plagarism by John Cleese et al. As the Team has taken turns playing the part of the Black Knight over @RC, Kevin has taken the show onto the world stage. His Noble – sorry – I mean, Global Quest for the Holy Grail – sorry – I mean, his global quest to find the missing heat has me in stitches. Who all will fall in as the quest continues should be fun to watch, particularly who’ll be seen making the clippity-clop noises as they go. Perhaps some smaller tree X-sections would work . . .

Happy Trails,
-Peter

By: stephen richards

stephen richards — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:59:35 +0000

I think that this is the first scientific proof of ESP. Steve realized that Trenberth was going to correct what he had not corrected before Trenberth knew that he DrT was going to correct it. So, Steve wrote the post while Trenberth was beginning to think that he would correct the text and by the time Steve had posted the errors DrT had corrected it.

See ESP. The proof. Well done Steve Mc another first!!

By: Ken Mival

Ken Mival — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 05:03:58 +0000

Being a resident of the State of Victoria and having just returned from Queensland where my son lives in the flood affected city of Ipswich, I was distressed to see a prof of earth sciences (karoly) attributing the floods to ‘warming of the waters around Australia’.

This is only a half truth as the cause of the flooding rains is the extremely deep La Nina we have experienced since mid last year – with cooling of the pacific to our west by as much as 4 degrees. That does not get a mention at all.

I quote from another paper – Andrew Bolt of the herald sun who quotes what is being stated as follows:

“Scientists such as Professor Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at Britain’s Met Office, and Dr Kevin Trenberth from the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research have pointed to the evidence showing a warmer world is a wetter world, due to increased water vapour and energy in the atmosphere leading to more frequent and intense storms.

In The Age this week, Professor David Karoly from Melbourne University’s school of earth sciences was quoted as saying that the wild weather extremes were in keeping with scientists’ forecasts of more flooding and more droughts as a result of high temperatures and more evaporation.”

No mention there of La Nina

Go to Andrew Bolt’s blog for the full expose:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/are_these_floods_really_just_a_warmists_event

By: Top Posts — WordPress.com

Top Posts — WordPress.com — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:12:56 +0000

[...] Team Policy on Acknowledgements After CA reported Trenberth’s lifting of text from Hasselmann 2010 verbatim or near-verbatim either without citation [...] [...]

By: Robert S

Robert S — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:09:47 +0000

Harold wrote
“Attacking a person isn’t an ad hominem argument?”

No, simply attacking a person is NOT ad hominem. Straight from wiki

An ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise

By: Manfred

Manfred — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:55:40 +0000

Isn’t the insertion of changes suggested by Steve without acknowledgement another and this worse because deliberate act of plagiarism itself ?

By: Yancey Ward

Yancey Ward — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:38:08 +0000

Once you begin to deny truth in trivial matters, it is only a matter of time before you start denying it in nontrivial ones. It is so easy to redraw that line where you decide, “I will lie about this, but not that.” This is how corruption works, a bit at a time.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:41:36 +0000

Isn’t Jeremy’s comment really about critical thinking and self-awareness in the sense of being aware of our influences? Even if his points are narrated from a specifically “religious” perspective, aren’t we talking about interpretation here? As far as I am concerned a philosophical hermeneutic is not that different from the scientific method. Hermeneutics helps us hash out a method for our thinking skills and presuppositions, pre-understandings and prejudices to find the best interpretation. Not sure how different this is from the scientific method.

I can read past the “religious” layers of Jeremy’s post to get to the kernel of what he means to say.

Aren’t we really talking about human inventions? Ideology?

By: j ferguson

j ferguson — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:38:52 +0000

My 12:36 comment should have followed Jeremy’s 10:44 comment.