Here’s an interesting example of denialist chumming by Curry for your delectation: (h/t to Willard for giving me the scent)
I am putting this out there for discussion. Why do scientists see the need to jump right out there and make statements like this without even looking at the basics of the regional climatology? Trenberth and Somerville are activists on the topic of AGW
I am open to other/better interpretations of this situation, but I am personally not seeing any. The better question is why does NOAA find attribution services to be important, and why was there a consensus at the Workshop on its importance? Exactly how is someone supposed to make use of this information? [my emphasis]
Gobsmacked here. Absolutely gobsmacked.
First, this is pure denialist chumming, and the evidence is in the comments. Curry throws out some bait and here come the sharks — or guppies depending on your take on this.
Here’s some bait, just to get the scent in the water:
Summary: Not sure what the motive is for the attribution of extreme events, other than to build political will for climate change policies.
Here’s another bit of chum:
why does NOAA find attribution services to be important and why was there a consensus at the Workshop on its importance?
LOL! She answers the question then asks it.
The very first poster gives Curry the answer that deniers have been working hard to create in the minds of the gullible:
Clearly science is becoming more market oriented.
NOAA sees a need for a hook to highlight its Climate Service. Extreme weather events are tailor made for this purpose. Funding is made available and “science” follows.
Rather sad, imo.
Rather sad, indeed…
Bull. The motivation is entirely political. The only reason for attribution is to assign blame and support the case for political action. If they were concerned about “saving lives, property, disease, etc.” the effort would be going into prediction and mitigation.
And another one — its getting crowded, as the hungry crowd circles the bait:
“…nothing to do with political agendas?”
…One of the express purposes of the whole exercise is to impact “decision making” and “decision makers.” How precisely can that not be political when those decisions themselves are at their core political?
Alarmism has become an important part of politics, perhaps more than ever before, because in an age of mass, instant communication, alarmism often works.
Even Curry jumps in and takes a bite of her own bait:
How does attribution help save lives and property? We will still have floods and droughts, whether or not we stop burning fossil fuels. We have a big adaptation deficit with regards to floods, droughts, and hurricanes, relative to the events of the last two decades. If climate scientists were pushing strategies to adapt to extreme events through better land use policies, infrastructure, and better forecasts, then I would be more impressed. Instead, these attribution statements get tied up with statements about reducing CO2 (e.g. Trenberth’s statement, Santer’s statement, Somerville’s statement, etc.) Thinking that floods and droughts and hurricanes will go away if we stop burning CO2 is beyond a joke. Looking back at the 1890′s, we saw a horrendous rash of extreme weather events that had nothing to do with global warming. [my emphasis]
Now Curry has finally revealed herself. No one said that extreme events would “go away” if we stop burning fossil fuels, but if these extreme events increase because of global warming, then we face even more of these events and have to plan for that. We may be adapted to prevailing levels of extreme events, but not to increased numbers of them and not to increased severity.
She appears to reveal her lukewarmer agenda by supporting adaptation and forecasts and and use policies, but not to CO2 mitigation…
I don’t understand how a scientist can make the statement that understanding attribution is unimportant!
Like I say, gobsmacked!
There’s so much blood in the water, it’s a bit hazy but there are so many ripe examples of this whole agenda of bashing the science and the scientists.
Here’s an example:
Of course there is –
Advocating for better land use policies is common sense that should be obvious to everybody. It does not imply an agenda.
Advocating for CO2 reduction is, by definition, an agenda. Scientists who are seen as pushing an agenda, are rightfully seen as biased, and their science is then possible or even “probably” biased.
Obviously, Jim has little skill in logic, for it seems abundantly clear to me that advocating anything implies and agenda! The agenda, at the minimum, is to effect change whether it is a change in land use or a change in CO2 emissions. Where does this sh*& come from?
Thank the GODS for people like Michael, although his wisdom is lost on the Curry-guppies.
If we can in any way accurately attribute, then we may be able to identify a ‘fatter tail’ on the probability of extreme weather events, and we might know something very important about the magnitude and the frequency of such events. Very helpful for those responsible for infrastructure planning and disaster response.
Yet, the idiocy reigns supreme and this poster is the fulfillment of Curry’s actions on her blog:
Dr. Curry: Excellent post! Thanks for tackling this subject, which I find odd as well.
“Not sure what the motive is for the attribution of extreme events, other than to build political will for climate change policies.”
It sure comes across as grasping at straws to further the cause. For me it is yet another reason not to trust climate scientists. It wouldn’t surprise me if other people have a similar reaction. I’d be interested in seeing some polling.[my emphasis]
Yep. Curry has succeeded in furthering this meme that climate scientists are not to be trusted. She indicated as much in her opening remarks and her faithful have parroted and regurgitated it up almost as if on command.
Michael is my new hero. I post this exchange between him and Richard Drake: