Dear David Janes,

Just want to say thank you. At last some sanity. I guess you are a scientist. You represent the silent majority, who should participate more in the debate.

 Anthony

This page says:

"misrepresentation of science related to disasters and climate change"

"incontrovertible and repeated misrepresentation"

*** Links to:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000990looking_away_from_mi.html

(Environmental studies prof speaking about science policy statements?)

Who says:
"Misrepresentation by editor of Science of attribution of Katrina to greenhouse gas emissions"

*** Links to:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.html#000681

(Article by same prof.)

Who says:
"From Kerry Emanuel’s [climate scientist's] homepage:

“Q: I gather from this last discussion that it would be absurd to attribute the Katrina disaster to global warming?

A: Yes, it would be absurd.”"

. . .in a discussion really about semantic accuracy regarding scientific claims in *reporting*:"But even when a stable consensus is achieved, scientific uncertainty is not eliminated."

= = =
Now, finally, we check the actual science.
= = =


*** Links to:
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm

Who made the comment quoted above (that Katrina wasn't provably because of GW effects), but, now read within the context, the scientist is making a point that statistical analysis isn't possible specifically in the USA case because of insufficient data. However, he points out that this is a problem with the bounding of the question (of whether the case of the _USA_ is getting worse hurricanes because of CO2 _globally_. This begets nonsense, because numeric records aren't around to answer the question. However:

"Q: OK, maybe we won’t see global warming effects in landfalling hurricanes for another 50 years or so, but shouldn’t we still be worried about it?

A: [. . .] On the other hand, if one’s view is not confined to the U.S. but is global, and/or one’s time horizon is more than 50 years, global warming may indeed begin to have a discernible influence on hurricane damage, especially when coupled with projected increases in sea level."


= = =
So, at the base, what we have is that a person familiar with the data, who believes that global warming is happening and unquestioningly anthropogenic (check the link).

It's interesting that a statement on subtle technical level about a particular aspect of the impossible to satisfy require to politically frame/bound climate science is the one thing that is reproduced, minus all this context and commentary, and that this is what makes the statement change in reference (meaning), and that each website reproducing these ideas creates a hall of mirrors, where the meanings are changed, amplified and at each step gain in scope and level of abstraction. Finally, we have arrived at statements antithetical to the views of the one person expert enough to understand the subject.

So going back to the source and reading through it in context, we see that what was originally a comment about USA _statistics_, was quoted and adopted and passed along to support a view about science reporting, to climate science, to global climate change by this site.

. . .now, back over to politics?

Perhaps it's not particularly obvious from the selection above, but the blog I'm quoting above also believes in AGW (but is upset that the fact that the science is being distorted or misrepresented to push policy).

I've updated the previous post so that the links work.

The issue of silent majority is an interesting one, because many (Al Gore, for example) are framing this as a debate on which only selected experts are allowed to participate. I'm one of these weirdos that believes science is accessable and understandable by all, at least to some degree, and that when someone fudges or lies or misrepresents to make their case, it's probably because the case isn't there.