From an interview given by one of the Climategate scientists I heard he and his compatriots have decided to provide computer code regardless, but they are doing so voluntarily, not because they have to. The fact that they did not do so in the past is therefore not evidence of a problem — except, of course, with the Deniers asking for more than they deserved.

(And, for the record, that same interview related how the Denier requests also often asked for material that was either already freely available from different sources or for material that the scientist in question did not have the legal right to give out — but, no matter, any rejection for any reason is enough for Deniers to cry foul)

I am writing the below opinions on behalf of Advocates for Children in Therapy, a not-for-profit organization that opposes unvalidated and abusive psychotherapy.

There is something that concerns us greatly about Kevin Trenberth, a major figure in global climate research. We aren’t convinced he is really a scientist.

Dr. Trenberth and his wife Gail have long been known as leading family in promoting a highly abusive and pseudoscientific psychotherapy used on adopted children. Gail Trenberth is co-founder of the national organization: Attachment Disorder Network (currently called Attachment & Trauma Network). This organization promotes the most brutal forms of Attachment Therapy. Some refer to proponents as a “therapy cult.”

For over 40 years, “Attachment Therapy” has been linked to criminal cases involving children being starved, caged, isolated, and even killed. It is not hyperbole to say that Attachment Therapy (aka Rage Reduction, Holding Therapy, Compression Therapy, Rebirthing, Nancy Thomas parenting, etc.) is torture. (We are applying the definition of torture used in the UN Convention on Torture.)

We recently approached Dr. Trenberth, thinking that recent developments might cause him to reconsider Attachment Therapy. We pointed out that in the last 40 years there has been no valid research on Attachment Therapy and that in 2006 the American Psychological Association and APSAC condemned the practice as abusive and “inappropriate for all children.” Alas, Dr. Trenberth continued to staunchly defend Attachment Therapy as “effective.” He wrote:

“Well a key part of science is empirical experimentation and some of this works, whether you like it or not.”

Oh dear. Wrong answer, Dr. Trenberth.

Dr. Trenberth apparently considers subjecting children willy-nilly to Attachment Therapists is “empirical experimentation.” He certainly would be hard pressed to name any published studies on Attachment Therapy. His other comments revealed to me that he accepts Attachment Therapy’s unique beliefs about child development, as well.

Here is a clip of the type of “therapy” that Dr. Trenberth thinks is “effective” in creating a loving attachment between parent and child, or as he puts it, “breaking through defenses” to attachment:

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dl8ArqRt7wBE

We believe we are on firm ground when we assert that Dr. Trenberth is not in the habit of thinking like a scientist, and especially not when it comes to the welfare of defenseless children.

It is our opinion that Dr. Trenberth’s continued defense of quackery puts all of his scientific endeavors into question.

We believe that Dr. Trenberth’s continued promotion of Attachment Therapy is unfortunate behavior for a scientist and because of this, his studies merit especially close scrutiny. Global warming is a serious issue and we need reliable data to act responsibly. It’s not something about which we would automatically be comfortable trusting to Dr. Trenberth.

Venus == runaway global warming is a very poor argument.

The truth shall set you free!

Ben Santer:

As I see it, there are two key issues here.

First, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Pat Michaels are arguing that Phil Jones and colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) willfully, intentionally, and suspiciously “destroyed” some of the raw surface temperature data used in the construction of the gridded surface temperature datasets.

Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC “discernible human influence” conclusions.

Both of these arguments are incorrect…

Phil Jones:

Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center [see here and here].

The original raw data are not “lost.” I could reconstruct what we had from U.S. Department of Energy reports we published in the mid-1980s. I would start with the GHCN data. I know that the effort would be a complete waste of time, though. I may get around to it some time. The documentation of what we’ve done is all in the literature.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18279-deniergate-turning-the-tables-on-climate-sceptics.html

On #3, the stated outcome must be sarcastic; compare:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/03/journal_of_american_physicians.php

On #4, they could have pointed to this detailed critique of Monckton’s paper:

http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2008/07/aps-and-global-warming-what-were-they.html

Devil’s Advocate: Who’s arguing for a liberal political litmus test for skepticism?