Bishop Hill draws attention to the publication of Trenberth’s comment on Spencer and Braswell 2011 in Remote Sensing. Unlike Trenberth’s presentation to the American Meteorological Society earlier this year (see here here here, Trenberth et al 2011 was not plagiarized. The review process for Trenberth was, shall we say, totally different than the review process […]
Like most of us, I’ve been a bit taken aback by the ritual seppuku of young academic Wolfgang Wagner, formerly editor of Remote Sensing, for the temerity of casting a shadow across the path of climate capo Kevin Trenberth. It appears that Wagner’s self-immolation has only partly appeased Trenberth, who, like an Oriental despot, remains […]
Kevin Trenberth recently expressed his consternation at the breakdown in Team defensive zone coverage that enabled publication of Spencer and Braswell: “I cannot believe it got published,” said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Trenberth and Phil Jones were Cover 2 in the rock-solid IPCC AR4 defense. Readers will […]
A few days ago, I challenged Trenberth’s claim that “AR4 was the first time Jones was on the writing team of an IPCC Assessment.” Earlier this year, Real Climate stated that AR4 had been “written by over 450 lead authors and 800 contributing authors”. In my challenge to Trenberth’s claim, I observed that Jones had […]
After CA reported Trenberth’s lifting of text from Hasselmann 2010 verbatim or near-verbatim either without citation or, in the one citation, a citation that was inadequate given the lengthy near-verbatim quotation, Trenberth moved quickly to cooper up his presentation against plagiarism allegations by inserting citations to Hasselmann 2010, responding to each of the incidents reported […]
On January 14, 2011, I reported here that Trenberth’s AMS presentation had lifted text verbatim or near-verbatim from Hasselmann 2010 with no citation in most cases and, in the one case where Hasselmann 2010 was cited, the citation was insufficient under standard academic practices given the lengthy near-quotation. Trenberth’s original presentation is here. This post […]
In case readers think that Trenberth’s outburst discussed yesterday represents an isolated and unfortunate climate scientist incident, this is not the case. In fact, some of Trenberth’s most objectionable language was lifted verbatim from an article in Nature Geoscience earlier this year. Trenberth here; Hasselmann here. Trenberth’s copying from Hasselmann came in two forms: – […]
Anthony draws attention to a bilious diatribe by Trenberth against “deniers”. I have some back-history with Trenberth. In 2005, Trenberth was interviewed by Paul Thacker of ES&T about the MM articles (discussed here) where he stated: There have been several examples of people who have come into the field of climate change and done incredibly […]
Last summer, after Paul Thacker published a critical article about me in Environmental Science & Technology (also try here), I contacted three of the people prominently quoted in the article – Mahlman, Trenberth and Famiglietti – to obtain confirmation of what they said. As you will see below, their responses are extraordinarily lame. None of […]
I don’t think that people entirely appreciate the absurdity of the views of Gavin and Rasmus that consideration of persistence in climate somehow "pitches statistics against physics". If climate scientists are seeking more familiar authority for just how preposterous this claim is, they need look no further than Trenberth [1984], previously discussed on this blog […]
Climate Audit 
Thacker’s “Sources”
Last summer, after Paul Thacker published a critical article about me in Environmental Science & Technology (also try here), I contacted three of the people prominently quoted in the article – Mahlman, Trenberth and Famiglietti – to obtain confirmation of what they said. As you will see below, their responses are extraordinarily lame. None of […]