Mixing expertise and metaphors

Kevin Trenberth, and many others, (all climate scientist types) have a brief op-ed (the list of names crowds out any space for mounting an argument) in The Australian.

In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work.

Yes – that’s more or less true. So how then do these climate scientists explain the last paragraph? (emphasis added)

There is also clear evidence the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.

While a GP might ‘order’ decades of economic growth, it isn’t clear that is how a market economy operates.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Mixing expertise and metaphors

  1. Eyrie

    RTWT at the WSJ. The Australian is declining rapidly. Lately it hasn’t even been thick enough to be worth buying – not enough newsprint for the cat’s litter tray liner.
    Trenberth and co are frauds.

  2. Winston Smith

    This is just a variation on the theme, Sinclair.
    Not only do we have Environmental Armageddon if we don’t follow the prescription the good doctor gives us, we also have an upside – Eternal Youth!
    So bloody predictable. A snake oil salesman promises less.

  3. Rabz

    That last paragraph is so ridiculous it doesn’t even warrant a response.

    FFS, why do these idiots bother? It’s not as if they’ve got reputations that are worth defending, much less salvaging.

    Go and fabricate another baseless, evidence free scare, you lying, anti scientific commie pillocks.

  4. m0nty

    While accomplished, most of its authors have no expertise in climate science. The few who have are known to hold extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert.

    This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after it was settled science.

    Wow, Trenberth lays the smackdown. Stinging analogy for superannuated geologists like Plimer.

  5. cohenite

    I love the doctor analogy as used by AGW goons; that is, if your doctor tells you you’re sick you don’t go to someone without any qualifications for a 2nd opinion.

    Well, people do; and others sue the original doctor when they are proved to be wrong; and medical malpractice is a growing area of litigation; and like AGW scientists a lot of doctors, especially specialists, are arrogant sob’s.

    The whole analogy and comparison with doctors is dumb; AGW scientists either stand or fall by their own work and standards; and as the emails have shown they even admit they have failed; Trenberth has conceded both privately and publically that AGW science is bullshit; that’s not his words but let’s be realistic here: AGW is a lie, it’s a scam, a joke; anyone who takes it seriously is either an idiot, a liar, making money from it; or all 3.

  6. cohenite

    Plimer doesn’t smoke; you’re an idiot monty.

  7. m0nty

    He’s on something, cohenite.

  8. FDB

    Where’s the mixed metaphor?

  9. Hal Pringle

    Kevin “its a travesty” Trenberth has the gall to insist only those of good “reputations” built on peer reviewed knowledge and expertise should be allowed to comment.
    He himself starred in the CRU Climategate emails. He now claims of the last decade, “it was the warmest decade on record”, while in private he was responsible for the admission:
    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”
    That should disqualify him on the grounds of credibility.

  10. Annabelle

    Funny: Trenberth stresses the importance of expertise in a field, and then offers an opinion in a field of in which he has no expertise.

  11. JC

    There is also clear evidence the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.

    What a freaking moron. Seriously what a moron.

    What’s worse is that the dick accused the other letter writers of not having expertise in climate science to be able to talk about it but ignores this rule for himself when it comes to talking about economics. And his point is so wrong, it’s actually stupid.

    Trenberth was also a the prick who tried to stuff the IPCC with overstating the risk of storm activity until Chris Landsea had to threaten to resign.

    Trenberth and the rest of the team are the reason climate science is so lowly regarded.

  12. Pingback: Kevin Trenberth et al at Catallaxy Files

  13. JC

    snap anabelle.

    He’s a political advocate moron. That’s all.

  14. It probably is true, there will be “decades of economic growth” after the transition to a low carbon economy. Of course, that is because we will have been in a long period of sustained recession (depression???) due to the over inflated cost and the shortages of energy caused by the transition.

    After we hit rock bottom, there will be nowhere to go but up, ie economic growth.

  15. Token

    Funny: Trenberth stresses the importance of expertise in a field, and then offers an opinion in a field of in which he has no expertise.

    I had a chuckle about that as well.

    If you are a AGW doomsday cultist you ignore such inconsistencies as it is important that the faith is never questioned.

  16. Alan Moran

    Of course, as Einstein said of the 100 German authors ( Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein ) who signed a document for Hitler stating that Einstein’s theory was wrong; “If I were wrong, it would only have taken one.” HT Brice Bosnich

  17. Jim Rose

    if only scientists and lay people were so deferential to expert advice from economists!!

    as richard tol notes, few economists work full-time on global warming because their advice is unwelcome.

    1, the evidence is in on global warming and its effects, but there is no reason to rush to action, and have crash programs to curb global warming

    2. the Stern review as “alarmist and incompetent.”

    3. There is no risk of damage [from global warming] that would force us to act injudiciously;

    4. We have got enough time to look for the economically most effective options, rather than dash into actionism, which then becomes very expensive

    5. the benefits of a warmer world are frequently overlooked.

  18. dakingisdead

    “(all climate scientist types)”

    I.E. computor modelers all sucking the tit of public funded largesse defending the continuation of their income rort.

  19. Johno

    I found Trenberth and Co’s article very encouraging. If this is the best they can offer, then they are dead. It’s only a matter time before enough people recognise the scam that is global warming and it will be all over red rover.

    I really loved them running the tired old line about 97 percent of scientist support immediate action on global warming. I think it was C. L. who linked to the ‘research’ paper on this one and pointed out that the 97 percent result was only achieved by eliminating all those scientist who didn’t believe from the sample. If you looked at the number of believer as a proportion of the original survey group, then the result was about 3 percent of scientist where believers. They are that blatantly corrupt.

    C. L. do you have a link to that paper. I’m aware that the love media often runs with this line, so it would be good to have the research again to demonstrate yet another lie that is needed to bolster this failing faith.

  20. blogstrop

    Another group of zombies who won’t just die when all the normal life support for their grand eco-scam has evaporated. Climategates 1 & 2 were the equivalent of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but there’s no rational emperor left to call it quits. Or if there is, he’s not dressed fit to be seen in public, and knows it.

Comments are closed.