June 4, 2006

Weekend Question 3: Will This Kind of Enviro-Intimidation Grow?

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government,TWUQs — Tom @ 4:31 pm

Meteorologists doesn’t toe the line on man as the primary cause of global warming he should lose their jobs, according to some enviros:

Ignoring Science?
Protesters Call for Resignations, Say Government Ignoring Global Warming Effect on Hurricanes
May 31, 2006 — To anyone who spent time watching hurricane forecasts last summer, Max Mayfield may seem like a hero. The director of the National Hurricane Center predicted many of the season’s worst storms.

But a day before the start of the 2006 hurricane season, environmental groups called for Mayfield and other officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to resign.

“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.

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.

NOAA officials declined to be interviewed today but released a statement saying the agency had not taken a specific position on the relationship between global warming and hurricane behavior.

“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.

One NOAA official, speaking on background, said today that not all of the agency’s scientists agree a global warming-hurricane link exists. Mayfield put the blame on natural climate cycles when he testified before Congress in September 2005.

“The increased activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations and cycles of hurricane activity,” he said at the time.

But a growing body of peer reviewed scientific evidence — including a study released today by researchers at Pennsylvania State University and MIT — downplays the role of natural cycles and blames global warming — brought on by human activities — as a factor heating the Atlantic Ocean, which in turn fuels more intense hurricanes that may affect the United States.

Points:

  • Peer review, schmeer review — Previous BizzyBlog posts (here, here, and here) have noted that peer review means that the research in question may have passed a “stench test,” but cannot be said to have passed a smell test. The Korean stem-cell scientist’s totally fraudulent work was also peer-reviewed.
  • The calls for resignations are nothing more than naked attempts at intimidation and silencing of dissent by people who deep down know that their claims of man-made global warming don’t stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Maybe they will someday, but the research isn’t there to support it, and they know it.
  • The intimidators want to skip the dirty work of actually having to prove what they believe, so they can get on with their primary goal of slowing down the march of economic progress that has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and promises to lift out billions more in as little as 40 years. Go figure — This is why “environmental wacko” is an appropriate descriptor for them.
Share

2 Comments

  1. Ummm… This article says that people who claim that stronger hurricanes are caused by global warming are being canned, not that people are claiming that hurricanes cause global warming.

    “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 increased activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations and cycles of hurricane activity,” he said at the time.”

    This would indicate that they’re arguing about the cause of hurricane activity, not global warming. The questions brought up after the article are therefore irrelevant.

    Comment by werthog — June 8, 2006 @ 9:44 am

  2. #1, first bullet stands, regardless of your spin.

    Second bullet cuts to the heart of the objection, and the statement you quote doesn’t give credibility to global warming. It merely recognizes that there is a scientific debate–So? The global warming advocates’ side doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Besides, the NOAA was being polite. It’s not good PR to say “these guys are nuts,” even when they are.

    So I disagree. My points are very relevant, and on point.

    Comment by TBlumer — June 8, 2006 @ 10:35 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.