Unauthorized annotated Fyfe coauthors letter to US Rep. Lamar Smith

The Fyfe et al 2016 clarifying letter to US Representative Lamar Smith is well written.  There's nothing to complain about and I don't.  Still at 1000 word there's only so much it can say, and I'm going to use this opportunity to make my point using the words of other scientists.  Remember my beef is about communication, not the science.

I’ve borrowed from about a dozen climate studies, along with some other info and let their quotes speak for themselves.  I apologize for some of the hard feeling.  I do not apologize pushing for better recognition of our* failures to communicate, how else can we learn, how else can we improve?  (slight edit, I realized Josh Willis' quote belongs at the start of this reading, not at the end.)

Best Wishes.  

For the background to this, link here

* Climate science communicators big and little.

“One way to think about it is that global warming continued, but the oceans just juggled a bit of heat around and made the surface seem cooler for a while” 
Joshua Willis Ph.D. - JPL

Source for the text:

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2017/letter-to-lamar-smith/

Letter to Lamar Smith

March 28, 2017    communication   Ed Hawkins  Climate Lab Book

The Committee on Science, Space & Technology of the US House of Representatives conducts regular evidence hearings on various science topics. On Wednesday 29th March, there is a hearing on “Climate science: assumptions, policy implications, and the scientific method”. The following letter, summarising the scientific findings of Fyfe et al. (2016) and Karl et al. (2015), has been submitted as evidence to this hearing.

The broader context is that the Committee Chairman, Mr. Lamar Smith, has previously discussed the findings of Fyfe et al. (of which I was a co-author), claiming: “A new peer-reviewed study, published in the journal Nature, confirms the halt in global warming”. 

This statement is incorrect, and motivated the clarification on what Fyfe et al. actually says.

Dear Mr. Smith,

We are coauthors of the Fyfe et al. paper published in 2016 in Nature Climate Change [1]. You recently referenced this paper at a Subcommittee hearing on March 16, 2016 [2]. We are writing to clarify what the Fyfe et al. paper actually finds and claims. We also want to ensure that the conclusions of the Fyfe et al. paper are not misconstrued as a criticism of Thomas Karl, of the Karl et al. paper published in Science in 2015 [3], or of the valuable research that Dr. Karl and his team have performed over many years.

#5 Prof Trenberth stifling "sceptics"?? - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

A virtual debate with Jim Steele based on his interview at Heartland Institute:  

Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | January 27, 2015

Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett (for the National Center for Policy Analysis) interviews Jim Steele, ecologist, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada field campus of San Francisco State University

______________________________________________ 

Mr. Jim Steele:  "And we trust the scientific theory because it been fairly tested by others - the theory must out perform all alternate explanations, eliminate confounding factors plus lively debate.  But, what I was finding was the scientific process was being defiled when scientists refused to debate in public. ... and any attempt to prevent that debate, in our schools, in the media, in peer reviewed science, it's only denigrating the scientific process.  ... And I think those public debates would help create real climate literacy …"

Well then Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate.  I will accept these responses from your Heartland Institute podcast as your opening round.  I'll offer my rebuttals, evidence and questions.  I agree to post your thoughtful responses unaltered. (Though it is looking like you're going to do your best to hide and ignore these critiques of your self-certain claims. Your silence will serve to expose your hypocrisy and inability to defend your statements on an even playing field.)

In this fifth installment I'll be debating your take on Dr. Trenberth and confront you with the ethical question raised by Lawrence Torcello: "How should society contend with those who knowingly disseminate misinformation about climate science?" 

____________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Steele:  So you know, I've always advocated the need to be good environmental stewards and to be a good steward we need good science that we can trust.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Yeah?  So what happened?

It's one thing to preach about stewardship and needing science we can trust.
It's quite another to practice what you preach.

Mr. Steele, may I ask you, do people have a right to expect our educators to be honest about the science they are presenting to students and public?
___________________________________________________

Steele:  And we trust the scientific theory because it's been fairly tested by others - the theory must out perform all alternate explanations, eliminate confounding factors plus lively debate. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mr. Steele, what kind of "lively debate" are you talking about?  
Have you given any thought to the two basic types of debate?

You know, the political style debate where winning your argument is all that matters.  This sort of debate invites rhetorical and emotional 'devices' and since the goal doesn't reach beyond winning the argument at hand, they tend to be won by the slickest speakers who are best at mesmerizing their audience.  More the stuff of theater than substance.

On the other hand, consider the academic debate, where the goal of the debate is getting to the right answer and achieving a better understanding.  This debate also requires ego and rhetorical skills and striving to win one's argument.  But, the goal of debating is better understanding of the issues at hand.  I'm fearing you, Mr. Steele and your Republican/libertarian pals, simply can not fathom such a concept.  Am I correct?

Winning the debate is fun, great, but it's the getting it right that's the most important.  Being caught in a mistake and "losing" or sustaining bruised feelings is chump change.  Learning from the added knowledge and lessons and then striving towards greater achievements in light of the newly gained knowledge, now that's pure gold.   

Consider the constructive debate.

Is it OK to ignore key evidence?
Is it OK to repeat known lies?
Is it OK to ignore the statements and evidence presented by a debate 'opponent' ?
Is it OK to employ emotional and rhetorical distractions that have nothing to do with the substance of the questions?

Is a debate an argument to win?
Or is a debate an opportunity for mutual learning?
___________________________________________________

Steele:  But, what I was finding was the scientific process was being defiled when scientists refused to debate in public.

The 'Trenberth travesty' Travesty - Contemplating Contrarians #3

{edited 7/27/14 morning}

Being part-time retired means I'm part time working, and tis the season, calls keep coming in so I don't have near the time I need to put together a decent post.  Though I have managed to continue the "interesting" conversation with "krischel" over at OurChangingClimate.com.  I keep wanting to report on it, but it piles on too fast to do it justice.  Still, this evening I do want to share the results of this lasted dog-bone I fetched:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

 krischel posted: June 24, 2014 at 18:26
"CC asks: “Do you even understand what Trenberth’s Travesty was all about?”
"K responds: "Yes, I do. It was about hiding uncertainty from the public, rather than being openly honest about it."

~ ~ ~ 

K linked me to Judith Curry's blog post of 3/29/2013 "Has Trenberth found the missing heat"

That in turn led me to Curry's, "Where's the "missing" heat? 1/7/2011 - Then on to a Roy Spencer's article of April 21, 2010: 

"The problem is that the oceans have not been warming in response to this imbalance.  

Trenberth and Fasullo seem to lean toward the possibility that this heat is “missing” somewhere, maybe temporarily trapped in the deep ocean. 

Roger Pielke, Sr., has voiced his opinion that the heat could not have magically avoided the ocean temperature sensors, both in space and floating around the world’s oceans, which monitor ocean surface and upper layer temperatures."

Yet, from the information within the links I share, you can see Spencer has no foundation for claiming "oceans have not been warming…"  Why?  Because we are still waiting on the data from the all important Antarctic continental shelf.  Making their focus on <700m disingenuous.

INDEX for my Climate Science Video Collection

My first website http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com developed into a venue that focuses primarily on Earth observations, climate science and education, whereas I started this website to focus on climate science deniers and to examine some of their ruthless attacks on rational thinking and learning.  

Since attempting to encourage serious learning by sharing authoritative sources of information is also at the heart of this website. I've decided to share some links to a series of posts where I've collected some first class climate science education videos and lectures.

Enjoy and happy learning!

Unauthorized Notes: Dr. Trenberth lecture: "The Role of the Oceans in Climate "

I'm slowly building up to an examination of Watts' treatment of Dr. Trenberth and the science that he has been producing.  I feel that this project requires a more detailed presentation of exactly what Dr. Trenberth is trying to explain.  

To further that effort I have gone over the following talk and typed up another Unauthorized Notes.  Trenberth is gracious enough to pack his talk with slides and outlines, so most of these notes are simply his slides transcribed.  {curly brackets indicate my own comments}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. Kevin Trenberth: The Role of the Oceans in Climate