Kevin Vranes has a phud in Physical Ocean- ography and Cli- matology. He now studies sci- ence policy and politics at the When I read this the first two times I thought it came from The Onion, but apparently it's true.
ABCnews.com story here and Drudge Report story here:
Hundreds of concerned citizens and leaders from across the nation will join Hurricane Katrina survivors Wednesday to call for the resignation of the heads of the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at the NOAA Headquarters just outside of Washington, D.C. During an 11 a.m. demonstration, advocates will demand that NOAA stop covering up the growing scientific link between severe hurricanes and global warming while insisting on real solutions to the problem of global warming.
The upshot is, sometimes I have to agree with Rush Dumbimbaugh. There are environmental wackos out there every bit as misguided as the far right freaks who call for assassinations of South American heads of state and protest military funerals in the name of God.
"NOAA is actively covering up the strong and growing scientific link between more powerful hurricanes and global warming," said Mike Tidwell, who represents a group called the U.S. Climate Emergency Council.
Hmmm...really? So two independent research groups have published a very small handful of papers in the past year supporting a link between tropical storms and AGW (e.g.). Meanwhile, a small handful of other papers, published by other independent research groups, either do not find such links (e.g.) or say that the signal of the increase is buried in the noise of societal changes (e.g.).
I said in the title "science that doesn't exist." I don't mean that science supporting a link between TS's and AGW doesn't exist. Rather, I mean that the protesters are arguing (again, based on a very small number of papers all published in the past year) that a strong scientific consensus exists (and that NOAA is conspiratorially covering it up). I am arguing that despite strong words from the various scientific camps, no scientific consensus has yet become apparent (and won't for a few years). To protest stating otherwise is a gross misunderstanding of how science works and, worse, is stretching science toward a political goal. If there is a Republican War on Science, this must be the Democrats getting revenge.
If we want to actually follow the accepted machinations of scientific process, the most appropriate statement comes from NOAA:
"We recognize there is an ongoing scientific debate and will continue to support research that might identify detectable influences of global warming in hurricane frequency and/or intensity," the statement said.
and not from dimwits who think that changing the leadership of NOAA does anything at all to change the science:
The groups demanded that Mayfield and NOAA administrator Conrad Lautenbacher step down."They must resign immediately," said Tidwell, in front of about 30 protesters who'd gathered for a morning rally outside NOAA headquarters in Silver Spring, Md.
Comments
# 1 | Clark | June 1, 2006 12:54 AM
Well said.
The politicization of science by both extremes is deeply troubling to me.
# 2 | Steve Bloom | June 1, 2006 1:43 AM
Kevin, I know you've seen this elsewhere, but from today's Nature editorial: "In the past year, an emerging consensus has suggested that rising sea surface temperatures may well be causing hurricanes to become more intense over time." "Emerging" isn't "strong," but it is very much "apparent," and I suspect that "strong" isn't in the too far distant future.
Lautenbacher and Mayfield did in fact squelch dissenters last year, and I suspect continue to make it uncomfortable for them to speak out during the current season. There was also the little incident with the improper use of Bell and Chelliah's work in the NOAA official statement leading up to the 2005 season to try to show a "natural cycle" link.
In other words, they were caught red-handed playing politics with the science. Is that a resignation-level offense for people in their position? Arguably, IMHO.
Also, if you've been keeping track, it's getting to be sort of a big handful of papers. There's also a considerable overlap between the authors of those papers and the heavy hitters in the field.
All of that said, did the activists use sloppy language? Yes.
# 3 | SkookumPlanet | June 1, 2006 2:41 AM
Finally, some lefties may be getting it!
Yeah, Kevin, they're wrong. And protest is tired lefty dog-and-pony show, but demanding the heads of both heads of NHC and NOAA for conspiracy! Inspired, perhaps. The radical right's 500 [supposedly] "think tanks" generating similar "idea tactics", drip by drip for 30 years, changed America's political landscape. That it's been basically one continuous lie doesn't seem to have mattered. A current example, of course, are people/orgs paid to be AGW skeptics.
In terms of the average citizen's awareness, this could do more, more efficiently, than all that Hansen's ever said publically. The average person doesn't give a rat's ass about science, but scandal will perk up their ears.
Intuition says it's not so much anti-science as psychomarketing AGW. I'm not approving, just observing.
# 4 | Pi Guy | June 1, 2006 10:10 AM
First, while it is growing, it is still not so very big (if it was, there wouldn't be any debate to be had) but it will get bigger since that is where the grant money is right now. But, more to the point, "emerging" does not equal "strong" and the fact that you suspect that "strong" isn't in the too far distant future does not mean that "strong" is in the future. Keep doing studies, be objective, and let the scientific method sort it out.
Also, a number of the "heavy hitters" in the field - NASA's Hansen is a great example - didn't become so until after they submitted their Doomsday Predictions. That doesn't mean that they weren't doing meaningful research or are unqualified in the field. But one should be careful to consider the chicken-and-egg question when identifying a big player in this field at this time.
There are many heavy hitters (Lindzen, Janssens, Singer, et al) who outright refute many of the suspected dire consequences of AGW. It's just hard for them to get press coverage, air time, and funding to do their research because their message isn't sensational.
Try to get people to watch a news story or read an article with a title like "Top climate scientists say 'Don't panic - warming is normal and not expected to be too bad.'" Doesn't exactly jump out and grab you.
# 5 | MattXIV | June 1, 2006 10:17 AM
SkookumPlanet - The dimmer lights among the enviromentalists have been plugging alarmism and conspiracy for years. If anything, this enables the bullshit coming from the right since it moves what should be scientific issues into the political sphere where there is much less accountability regarding truthfulness. This only makes it easier for the left if they want to pass of bullshit as science as well.
# 6 | coby | June 1, 2006 11:23 AM
Kevin,
I do not support this call for resignations, I think the embarassment and the chance to change their policy is sufficient.
However, you have constructed a strawmen. You quote the protestors as saying "stop covering up the growing scientific link between severe hurricanes and global warming" and then claim "the protesters are arguing [...] that a strong scientific consensus exists" and attack that argument.
AFAIUI, NOAA prominently and confidently claimed "natural cycle", which clearly does imply consensus when there was none.
# 7 | Roy | June 1, 2006 11:35 AM
Actually, I'm wondering how seriously I should take somebody that uses such well-refined argumentation like "Rush Dumbinbaugh," "environmental wackos" and "right wing freaks." Maybee I'll take your work more seriously when you grow up.
# 8 | Brian S. | June 1, 2006 11:44 AM
Steve B. or anyone - do you have more info on what L and M did to squelsh dissent? That would decide for me whether they should resign.
Roy - relax, or grow a somewhat thicker skin. Kevin has interesting stuff here.
# 9 | SkookumPlanet | June 1, 2006 3:06 PM
MattXIV
I agree with you. Unfortunately, non-political science is an extinct species. The right has proven the strategy that everything is political.
# 10 | Pastor Ray | June 1, 2006 3:43 PM
Actually, I'm wondering how seriously I should take somebody that uses such well-refined argumentation like 'Rush Dumbinbaugh,' 'environmental wackos' and 'right wing freaks.' Maybee I'll take your work more seriously when you grow up."
Ditto. Science policy and science politics pick up from where the science, itself, leaves off. Kevin fails to persuade me that his commentary on the politics at NOAA represents a view that's grounded in a specialist's knowledge of climatology.
# 11 | neil | June 1, 2006 7:25 PM
Dear Roy and Pastor Ray [hmm, one letter difference...],
Brian S. is correct about Kevin's verbage and your response to his post. What you are really reacting to might be more of a cultural shift. Listen to many commentators on FOX, CNN, MSNBC et al. or Howard Stern et al. and you'll see worse labels in their 'arguments'. Yet, if you can ignore [or even laugh] at the labels and contemplate what is being said, there can be some substance.
But, is it a cultural shift? Didn't Mark Twain use a sharp tongue while making points? Maybe it is a preference of taste, of which there is no accounting for. Kevin is neither Twain or Stern et al, but if you read regularly, you'll see very good insight and substance.
But, I've digressed.
To their own detriment, the Environmental Wackos, a term I can use and laugh at as I used to be like them, can go a bit too far. I used to align myself with them. I went into the field with an EW group a few times after a few years of some solid scientific training until I could take it no longer. A few had some terminally wacky ideas. Maybe this is better verbage: some are poorly grounded in logic [hence wacko].
Like their Religious Right brethren, they are passionate, which I greatly appreciate. Like their Religious Right brethren and the RR's opinions about evolution, unfortunately, there can be a clear lack of understanding of the scientific process. That seems to be the case here.
If there has been some cover up, strong evidence for their protests should be presented. Maybe they are correct? They have been correct about a few things. Perhaps we should listen? Until solid evidence can be presented, however, it does sounds a bit like The Onion [which is funny and insightful].
Neil
# 12 | neil | June 1, 2006 7:49 PM
sorry, to complete my thought: if there is a growing consensus and evidence of squashing dissent, then maybe we should listen. on the other hand, if it is still not well understood, then they are protesting the scientific process.
# 13 | kevin v | June 1, 2006 8:32 PM
All - thanks for the comments ... I was away for the past 12 hours and expected this sort of array when I got back.
SB - As far as I've heard (and I'm reasonably well-connected to the third-hand pipeline but I'm definitely not inside), nothing Mayfield did could have possibly been construed as "squelching." Then again, I recognize that this is a subjective definition. As far as my outlook, if Mayfield made it clear that he wanted NOAA/NHC researchers to be giving reasonable portrayals of the science and not going off on personal tangents about what the future "might" look like if/when more evidence comes in, then I'm fine with that.
As far as Nature's editorial, I think they're out on a limb. I simply cannot take two papers from Webster's group (one paper by him and a incremental addition by Hoyos), one paper from Emanuel, a draft from Emanuel/Mann, and a Science Perspective by Trenberth as evidence of "an emerging consensus," especially when there is contradictory research. The better statement is what came out of the WMO tropical meeting in February (link)
Skookum/MattXIV - unfortunately you're probably 100% right
Coby - you're right that they claimed "natural cycle" prominently, but I would argue that since natural cycle is the null hypothesis, in the absence of lock/stock/barrel AGW evidence, and especially in the wake of a single storm and not wanting people to equate a single storm with the much larger issue of AGW, they were right to do so.
Roy and Pastor Ray - I don't expect to please everybody all the time, but if you read me a lot you see me use jargon very loosely at times, especially when I'm trying to be irreverent toward people who take themselves way too seriously. Both Rush and the enviros fit into the "way too seriously" column, and like Mark Twain (thanks, Neil (and Brian), he has always been one of my faves), whenever I see somebody building up their self-importance at the expense of others I see a big fat target.
# 14 | Paul S | June 2, 2006 12:50 AM
Yep, they're dimwits. PETA is another pseudoscientific bunch on the left.
I think the motives for this particular bunch have their roots in mistrust for anything associated with the Bush administration. Shrubco has a documentable history of covering up or ignoring science that doesn't suit their politics, and of dismissing AGW in specific. I can see how that plain truth got warped into the conspiracy theory these folks are ranting about.
# 15 | Steve Bloom | June 2, 2006 1:47 AM
Brian and Kevin, with regard to the squelching issue have a look at comments 108, 118, 121, 124, 127 and 129 of http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/hurricanes/ . Even though NHC/HRD admitted that there are indeed folks there who don't agree with the natural cycle hypothesis, none of them have ever been heard from. Why? I should add that several months ago I heard from a NOAA scientist who told me that the atmosphere there with regard to this stuff is in fact pretty poisonous.
Kevin, regarding the Nature editorial, it's clear from the accompanying story that their conclusion about the energence of a consensus was based on taking the temperature at the Monterey conference in April. That's not exactly a formal poll, but it has some value if the person with the thermometer is a science reporter with that degree of experience. Also, if you read through some of the other comments in the post I linked above, you begin to get a sense of why it is the natural cycle hypothesis has such little traction. And if it has no traction, you know what does. Emanuel+Mann may be the first formalization of the new theory, but it looks to me like the tip of a rather large iceberg.
# 16 | TokyoTom | June 2, 2006 7:46 AM
Kevin, you are right that "that changing the leadership of NOAA [will not] change the science" but it seems to me that you are coming down way too hard on these protesters.
First, we know that AGW is occurring, but this Admininistration has done all in its power to avoid taking meaningful, binding action, other than to continue research and to subsidize new technologies for China and India.
Second, as part of such actions, the Administration has made efforts to re-write science reports and to muzzle scientists.
Third, we know that the oceans are warming and that heat drives hurricanes, so that we are loading the dice in favor of of more intense hurricanes.
Fourth, despite some dispute over whether an AGW signal is now discernible through ENSO and other noise, there is no argument that AGW is not occurring or that it will produce weaker or less frequent hurricanes.
Fifth, there is some accuracy to the argument being made that NOAA and the NHC are deliberately understating the possible role that AGW may be playing in stronger and more frequent hurricanes. In an 11/29/2005 article, NOAA states that "NOAA attributes this increased activity to natural occurring cycles in tropical climate patterns near the equator." Since the possibility of an AGW role cannot be denied, isn't this attribution an overstatement by NOAA? The article concludes by stating "Consensus Among NOAA Hurricane Researchers and Forecasters: There is consensus among NOAA hurricane researchers and forecasters that recent increases in hurricane activity are primarily the result of natural fluctuations in the tropical climate system known as the tropical multi-decadal signal." This statement is footnoted by the following editor's statement, which acknowledges this is a misstatement:
Finally, a review of the website of the U.S. Climate Emergency Council seems to accurately summarize the current state of affairs at NOAA and the NHC:
Given the avalanche of conversions of skeptics in the face of increasing evidence of AGW, the record this Administration has in trying to minimize the problem and the need to address it, and the general understanding among scientists that AGW will tend to lead to more frequent, stronger hurricanes, I am puzzled that you think it appropriate to condemn those protesting at NOAA as "environmental wackos out there every bit as misguided as the far right freaks who call for assassinations of South American heads of state and protest military funerals in the name of God."
This Administration and the entrenched special interests that support it have made every possible effort to date to skew the public discussion of AGW, and you bash those who are rightfully worried about what AGW is likely to bring us? Are you really saying that it's wise policy for us to sit back and simply continue to experiment with the global environment in ways that can't be undone for millenia, until we have absolute proof that the time is too late?
Is this what passes for a litmus test of membership in the "Non-Skeptic Heretics" Club?
Tom
# 17 | TokyoTom | June 2, 2006 8:18 AM
MattXIV, you state that "alarmism and conspiracy for years. If anything, this enables the bullshit coming from the right since it moves what should be scientific issues into the political sphere where there is much less accountability regarding truthfulness. This only makes it easier for the left if they want to pass of bullshit as science as well."
I agree only in part. On climate, there is very little that environmentalists can do until people realize there is a problem. The vested interests who don't WANT a solution have been quite successful in playing the "enviro hype" game, but they would have played this game anyway to maintain their position, and there was very little else environmentalists could do to make the problem real for voters.
Even now that climate skeptics are dropping like flies, most Americans do not seem convinced, so the best card for those who want to push POLICY CHANGE (as opposed to merely reporting the current state of the science) is to make climate change real to Americans. Katrina and Wilma got our attention, and it absolutely is the right thing to do for those who want change to grab that attention and keep flogging it, and add in the thawing Artic, various warmings, floods and droughts as well.
The Administration is feeling vulnerable on this and is looking for ways out - now is absolutely the time to keep pushing, and those who would quibble over the arguments being made should realize that their true interests lie in helping to add pressure.
Kevin, Bush and Cheney just hired Hank Paulson, head of Goldman Sachs and The Nature Conservancy, as Sectretary of the Treasury, the Sena t and House Appropriations Committee have passed bi-partisan resolutions calling for mandatory GHG programs, and even Senator Inhofe has hosted a roundtable on climate change technologies. They are ready to make a move. Smart industry leaders are calling for mitigation measures, and public pressure can help to break the logjam. There is ample room for a deal, since it could be traded for smarter and less costly environmental regulations, for streamlining of permitting rules and other changes that will offset the implicit subsidies that the fossil fuels industry and manufacturers will lose when GHGs are regulated.
# 18 | Thucydides | June 2, 2006 11:40 PM
Tom -
Not sure how you can characterize the US Climate Emergency Council as having "accurately" summarized the state of affairs at NOAA and NHC when they quote a laughable Washington Post article that claims that NOAA Administrator Lautenbacher is a "friend" of President Bush's.
# 19 | spurwing plover | June 3, 2006 9:06 AM
These wackos must be big buddies to AL GORE and the eco green nut cases at GREENPEACE i mean frankly i think AL GORE is insane and these fools are so mislead i,ll bet they must think the world is flat like their jerks at the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY beleive
# 20 | Brian S. | June 5, 2006 9:59 PM
I finally read the references in Steve B.'s comment above - the most important is Comment 121. Someone was definitely squelching dissent, and given Kevin's recent post on "mild" scientific McCarthyism, I'd call this "moderate" McCarthyism (not allowed to talk, but are allowed to continue research). Whoever's responsible should be in trouble.
# 21 | TokyoTom | June 5, 2006 11:01 PM
Thucydides:
Cute. You can't dispute the political muzzling within NOAA, or the accuracy of the US Climate Emergency Council's summary, so you prefer to distract by arguing that the Washington Post was wrong to call NOAA Administrator Lautenbacher a "friend" of President Bush? It's an irrelevant point so I don't mind conceding it for purposes of argument (and without confirming the accuracy of your WaPo reference). Okay, Lautenbacher is NOT Bush's friend, but he's still Bush's appointee as NOAA Administrator, right? Anything else irrlevant you want to argue about?
Kevin, by the way, are you aware that the House Science Committee is hopping mad at Lautenbacher for the huge cost overruns on the NPOESS satellite (the original budget for this was twice the size of NOAA's annual budget, and recently acknolwedged cost overruns alone are now TRIPLE the size of the NOAA budget), and the Dem members called for his head three weeks ago?
http://www.newscientistspace.com/channel/space-tech/dn9151-huge-overspend-puts-weather-satellites-in-jeopardy.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19830
Still convinced that those calling for Lautenbacher to be replaced are "dimwits"? Perhaps you may have a point, since Lautenbacher and others are really simply implementing policy flowing from Cheney and Bush, so simply changing the leadership of NOAA is unlikely to do anything at all to change the skewing of the science.
Regards,
Tom
# 22 | kevin v | June 6, 2006 12:21 PM
Let's be clear -- if you've got a non-scientist PR flak as a gatekeeper and that gatekeeper is restricting access to scientists because the powers that be don't like the science, then obviously that's a big, big problem.
I'm starting to feel about this issue as I do about the IPCC TAR. TAR is lame duck dead because AR4 comes out soon. In 2008 we'll have a different administration. We beat this dead horse (the current administation's lack of regard for science) over and over and over and nothing changes. Why get all up in arms again when the latest piece of news comes along that tells us what we already know? Because we think, maybe just maybe, this time the Bush Administration will call off the doggies and let science cover the world in roses of knowledge? There are a lot of battles to be fought ....
# 23 | TokyoTom | June 12, 2006 12:47 AM
Kevin, do you understand why there are so many battles to be fought? The Administration is opposing the science - the truth - because it undermines them politically (having established environmentalists and their liberal friends as the enemy) and interferes with their ability to provide favors to industry. Given this, it puzzles me that you want to attack the demonstrators here, who are mainly correct. They certainly are NOT "environmental wackos ... every bit as misguided as the far right freaks who call for assassinations of South American heads of state and protest military funerals in the name of God", and your attempt to be even-handed is unbalanced and undermines your own credibility.
Thucydides: Sorry, but I'm dense. If your strongest criticism of the US Climate Emergency Council's position is that they quote a WaPo article which you think mistakenly calls Bush appointee Lautenbacher a friend of Bush (who is this a relevant concern?), then it seems to me to be a rather strong endorsement of the US Climate Emergency Council.