Jump to content

Talk:Kevin Trenberth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emails and stuff

[edit]

Taking the emails out of context isn't a good idea, even when this one is confirmed as genuine (I accept that). [1] presents this email as a complete thing. It isn't. Its totally cherry-pciked out of context. Please don't do that.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/21/hacked-emails-ncar-kevin-trenberth/ contains a rather fuller explanation of Trenberths position which makes this clear.

William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it cherry-picked or taken out of context? You've been objecting to any mention of the e-mail scandal on various articles. I wonder why that is. APK because, he says, it's true 19:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, In e-mail exchanges with fellow climate scientists, Trenberth has questioned scientific models used to predict the effects of long-term global warming is wrong. This email isn't about prediction. Perhaps we can discuss that point to our mutual satisfaction before going on to the cherry-picking aspect, if you still insist it isn't c-p'd William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the threshold for putting material in? This has been reported everyhere, you guys are just being difficult at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.241 (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what the sources are saying about this. Unless you habe some crstal ball, you should cut it out and stop trying to censor others. Comprende? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.241 (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Connolley. This is a potential BLP issue and should be addressed before adding it to the article(s). Censorship is not the issue at all. - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Connolley, the NYT article has been updated since the initial edit was made; in particular, the sentences involving Trenberth. I'll find another reference momentarily. To 420, in what way is the following sentence a BLP violation: "'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,' Dr. Trenberth wrote." Are certain editors claiming "BLP violation" to avoid 3RR violations, and as an excuse to semi-protect the article? It sure seems that way. There is no BLP violation. APK because, he says, it's true 02:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is an unverified out-of-context quote from a single illegally leaked email a sufficient source for anything? Assuming it becomes verified, would you include single sentences from the other ~10000 or so emails he has probably send over the last 5 years as well? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unverified? The NYT reporter spoke with Trenberth, asking him if he wrote it. He acknowledged authorship. Before the NYT article was changed, Connolley acknowledged (above - "Taking the emails out of context isn't a good idea, even when this one is confirmed as genuine (I accept that).") that Trenberth wrote the e-mail. No one has explained how the sentence is "out-of-context". If a single sentence from one of those 10,000 e-mails grabs the attention of the NYT, WaPo, Guardian, Times, etc. (like the one above), then yes. But I doubt you'll find many other than the one in question. It's cute watching people trying to bury legitimate news. APK because, he says, it's true 02:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this is breaking news and it sure as hell doesn't belong in this BLP, see WP:NOT#NEWS. I agree with WMC et al. Also, if anything, "Climate Gate" has shown Trenberth to be an honest and dedicated truth-seeker. Would he want this stuff appearing in his biography? No. It's been made public through computer crime. Further, Trenberth is cast in a much more favourable light, IMHO, than some of the others... This email shows the sort of honest spirit of skeptical investigation that you'd hope and expect from a scientist. Can we leave this BLP alone? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who said Trenberth was dishonest or not seeking the truth? The sentence he wrote in that e-mail does not cast him in negative light; as you mentioned, it shows the "honest spirit of skeptical investigation that you'd hope and expect from a scientist." If anything, the e-mail makes this article (i.e. him) look better. APK because, he says, it's true 07:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for an answer from you to my comment of 21:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely clear to me that censorship is what is really happening here. Just as an example, a very recent article signed by 16 highly reputed scientists talking about climate change (see Wall Street Journal "No Need to Panic About Global Warming") uses that exact E-mail quote from Kevin Trenberth to account for the climategate scandal. Going all over the climategate and climate-change-skeptics literature, that E-mail quote is to be considered, at least, very famous both in the scientific and journalistic arenas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.36.9.169 (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP, it's absolutely clear to me that you're badly misinformed. For a start, the WSJ 16 aren't all scientists, several are emeritus, and all but a couple have nothing to do with climate science. As has been noted in Wall Street Journal rapped over climate change stance | Environment | The Guardian which points to a response by many more than 16 really eminent climate scientists. The response notes that Trenberth's email was misrepresented: he was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together with the long-term human-induced warming trend. As our article on the emails already notes. The WSJ scandal appears to be too trivial to put in this bio, but these sources provide a useful corrective. . . dave souza, talk 22:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here and I do realize I'm very late to this little cover-up, but I was curious which of these 16 scientists don't qualify as scientists in Dave Souza's mind: Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Article probation

[edit]

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE interview

[edit]

There's a provocative remark in this interview by Trenberth that's drawing quite a bit of criticism in the blogosphere:

Spectrum: It seems to me the most damaging thing about the disclosed e-mails was not the issue of fraud or scientific misconduct but the perception of a bunker mentality among climate scientists. If they really know what they’re doing, why do they seem so defensive?
Trenberth: What looks like defensiveness to the uninitiated can just be part of the normal process of doing science and scientific interaction. Scientists almost always have to massage their data, exercising judgment about what might be defective and best disregarded. When they talk about error bars, referring to uncertainty limits, it sounds to the general public like they’re just talking about errors.

Hmmm.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with massaging the data, as long as you are very clear about what was done, and why. That is why "hide the decline" bothers so many people. They weren't being completely clear about what was being done. Q Science (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a common misrepresentation of "hide the decline" which was about one specific illustration for a WMO report cover, by one scientist trying to meet the requirements of the WMO for that particular report cover. Not ideal, but nothing to do with "massaging the data". . dave souza, talk 22:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1944 or 1945?

[edit]

The article lists both 1944 and 1945 for Trenberth's year of birth. Which is it? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UCAR seems to be offline, but his CV (archived) shows 1944. . . dave souza, talk 15:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article in The Guardian of 27 July 2016

[edit]

This article in The Guardian by a co-author of Trenberth might yield some interesting material: Climate models are accurately predicting ocean and global warming. It also references some peer-reviewed papers. Sorry but I haven't got time to work it up. Regards. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kevin E. Trenberth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More info to be added about career

[edit]

I plan to add more information about Kevin's career soon. I'll use his memoirs as a source: https://opensky.ucar.edu/islandora/object/books:741 . That should be fine, right? If someone objects to this (as the memoirs are self published), do let me know. EMsmile (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made those planned additions now. EMsmile (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kevin_Trenberth&oldid=1212453910"