That would be an alarmist scientist.
<<
By pushing an alarmists political agenda of course which is an anti-fossil fuel agenda.
<<
Hidden heat. Uncooperative temperatures. Uncooperative politicians who have other political motivations than his.
<<
I am sure he does but he is convinced he is right. In fact he is left.
Dr. Trenberth, like most of the well known alarmists, has expanded his role from scientist to activist. He would like the politicians to stop listening to their constituents, and, instead, do what they are told by the environmental left. He is making a very nice sounding euphemistic suggestion that we put an end to the republic, and establish an oligarchy, all because the people will not do what he and the rest of the environmental left say.
All of this is based on his certainty about CAGW, which survives in spite of multiple examples of failures of their predictions.
See...
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/0...
The climate scientists predict the climate for the future and they also predict the reasons for separate climates in our country. They are doing their duties, but there are so many limitations in these predictions. The climates and the climate changes are related with the environmental disasters. The scientists have predicted it before, they also gave the solutions for reducing the global warming in the earth. If the scientists can predict all the future and we human can do all good in this earth there will not be any problem to the environment.
Also, the politicians must be aware of the environmental problems and its effects, then only he can do something good for the environment.
It is all a political game. The control of energy is a big time power struggle. The whole thing boils down to: People are very, very, very wasteful!!!! So the whole Global Warming thing was developed to scare people into being conservationists instead of wasteful pigs. The means justify the ends. I do not believe is AGW but I believe in not being a wasteful pig. I agree with the aims of the myth but not the myth itself. It's a religion, God says don't murder, steal, etc. Global Warming says don't waste energy, food, etc. Same thing new God, is all. Again I believe in conserving, recycling as I believe I shouldn't steal or kill but I don't believe in either myth.
>>Why are they frustrated?<<
Maybe because every major scientific organization in the world agrees that global warming is occurring and that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause – but finds themselves dismissed as quacks and charlatans because of a political agenda that has successfully influenced public opinion through a campaign of lies that targets ideological zealots and scientifically illiterate nitwits.
it would not be the first time scientists voice their opinion on policy matters, Einstein wrote about the use and danger of nuclear weapons several times. People closest to the knowledge have a responsibility to inform.
Climate scientists are not the least bit disillusioned as to their role in their job and the role of politicians in their job.
Let us imagine that the flight engineer on a 747 repeatedly warns the pilot that the aircraft is running low on fuel and the pilot continues to fly the aircraft to greater and greater altitudes determined to get to his destination. All the engineer can do is to continue to warn the pilot about the low fuel situation that it is becoming a cause for serious concern and is approaching a critical status. Does the engineer then take over flying the aircraft and seek the nearest safe place to land? No, the pilot is the only one that can fly the aircraft. Does the engineer begin to tap the shoulder of the pilot to make sure the pilot is aware of the situation? That would be happening, if I was the engineer. Does the ignored engineer now show the pilot all the evidence available that clearly indicates the aircraft is running out of fuel? Again, if I was the engineer I would be showing him pictures of his family as well and tell him he is about to leave them with himself in their life! The engineer's best bet, at this time, is tell the passengers of the situation and that the pilot is refusing to land the aircraft. This would be in the hope that the passengers will remind the pilot that his primary concern is always with the safety of the passengers. The same is suppose to be true with politicians, but I have not seen any indication of this for some time now. When all is lost for a chance to rectify the situation the engineer will probably pass the word to the stewardesses to prepare the passengers for a hard, crash landing. Ultimately, as the aircraft loses engine power, my last thing to say would be the pilot is, congratulations! Not only have assured that you will die, but you have also assured that all else here will die with you!
"It is implied that scientists roles have expanded." - Should you mean scientists should start tapping politicians on their shoulders to make sure they are aware the situation, then I certainly hope so! What do you imply that scientist will do by this?
"But into what?" - Messengers with megaphones to make sure they are being heard!
"What is a "prominent scientist" - Perhaps your difficulty in understanding this lies within your seemingly lack of knowledge of the word "prominent"?
From Merriam-Webster:
"pra' - ma - nant
Definition of PROMINENT
1
: standing out or projecting beyond a surface or line : protuberant
2
a : readily noticeable : conspicuous
b : widely and popularly known : leading"
"How do they push society to act?" - Trenberth does not explain this for us. The only way they can push society to act is to clearly state their case to the public and to point out the politicians that block any attempts to correct a known problem that will impact all life on Earth. Scientist certainly cannot push politicians aside and cast votes for them on the issues.
"Why are they frustrated?" - Hello! Is anyone there?!? This is the engineer speaking to the pilot. We are about to run out fuel, you dimwit! Land the aircraft and refuel!
What does any of this have to do with the science behind the AGWT?
Added
LOL, Mike! I am certain that my analogy does not fit your perspective. My analogy was about the role of a flight engineer's job as compared to a scientist's role in their job. Neither one "fly the aircraft", but both provide the information needed for a more successful "flight". The pilot's job is like the politician's job. They will "fly the aircraft" and at times will not listen to what is vital information. One of the worst airliner disasters happened on the ground when one pilot ignored the information from the control tower and proceeded to take off after being told that another plane was still on the runway. Both passenger airliners were destroyed and many were killed because one pilot did not correctly respond to the information he had at hand. ... This is not unlike you, Mike. Tell me that you are not also a pilot? Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_ai... - Speaking of 747's, I may take it that my analogy went way over your head?
BTW, Mike. What either of us "see as a possible storm brewing on the horizon" is irrelevant to the discussion. Unless either of us has the data to support our positions then it is only a useless opinion. I have science behind my positions on the subject. What do you bring to the table? Psuedo-science, perhaps? Or just your ideologically driven opinion, perhaps?
Added
Since I am in my 60's it is doubtful that I will reach an age where my ideology becomes a substitute for my integrity as it has with you.
Expanded from when? What are you talking about?
The mission of the American National Academy of Sciences (established in 1873):
"NAS is charged with providing independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology."
The mission of the Royal Society of Canada: " ... and to advise governments, non-governmental organizations, and Canadians generally on matters of public interest."
Where does this bizarre idea that science should be kept away from public decision-making come from? Scientific understanding has to be brought to decision-makers on public issues.
Yes, I'm quite sure that Trenberth understands the role of politicians--he is an extremely smart man. I'm sure he'd LIKE them to listen to him and do what he says. I'm sure what he thinks they should do is listen to all the input and make decisions based on the facts.
You think politicians should listen to Lindzen and do nothing like Lindzen says, which is the same thing almost. The difference is that Trenberth doesn't talk nonsense like Lindzen does, but that Lindzen's nonsense is what you want to hear.
Recently on an NPR interview:
Over the decades that he (climate scientist Kevin Trenberth) has been working on climate change, the role of scientists has gradually expanded. Prominent scientists like him are trying to reduce the risk of global disruption by pushing society to act. These are frustrating times.
"This is very much in the role of the politicians who are supposed to do what's in the interests of everybody as a whole," Trenberth says. "And I'm not so sure many politicians understand their role in this." http://www.npr.org/2013/08/23/214198814/the-consensus-view-kevin-trenberths-take-on-climate-change
____________________________________________
It is implied that scientists roles have expanded. But into what? What is a "prominent scientist"? How do they push society to act? Why are they frustrated?
Does Trenberth understand the role of politicians? Does he think they should just listen to him and do what he says?
