by Judith Curry

Given the substantial number of comments on Part I, I’m starting a new thread to discuss the post by Trenberth, Abraham and Gleick, and Pielke Sr’s response.

The article by Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham, and Peter Gleick is entitled:

Opinion: The damaging impact of Roy Spencer’s science

published on the Daily Climate on September 2 2011.

This appears to be the Climate Rapid Response Team in action; I know that Abraham is one of the leaders of this and Trenberth is on the team.

The title pretty much says it all. The “damaging impact” of someone’s science? What damage is being done? I find this whole concept of someone’s science being damaging as rather scary, and it is not Spencer’s science that I find scary. Not a proud moment for the Team.

Pielke’s response starts with:

There is an opinion article at Daily Climate that perpetuates serious misunderstandings regarding the research of Roy Spencer and John Christy. It also is an inappropriate (and unwarranted) person attack on their professional integrity. Since I have first hand information on this issue, I am using my weblog to document the lack of professional decorum by Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick.

Pielke concludes with:

Roy Spencer is hardly discredited because there are papers that disagree with his analysis and conclusions. This will sort itself out in the peer-reviewed literature after he has an opportunity to respond with a follow on paper, and/or a Comment/Reply exchange. Similarly, John Christy can respond to the Santer et al paper that is referred to in the Trenberth et al article.

What is disturbing, however, in the Trenberth et al article is its tone and disparagement of two outstanding scientists. Instead of addressing the science issues, they resort to statements such as Spencer and Christy making “serial mistakes”. This is truly a hatchet job and will only further polarize the climate science debate

JC conclusion: Count me in Pielke’s corner on this one. The Team is trying to cash in on this event to bolster the credibility of Team science. This is not the way to do it, and this kind of behavior, particularly from Trenberth who is in a position of responsibility at a government lab, Chair of GEWEX and as a participant of the IPCC, will backfire on them.

The GEWEX link between Wagner and Trenberth seems to provide motivation for the letter to Trenberth. An apparent gatekeeping issue, in response to a leaky gate. Learn anything from Climategate, anyone?