|send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl|
In The Eye of the Hurricane Debate?
It quite rightly notes that this debate is not critically relevant to policy decisions whose primary consideration is reducing loss of life and property damage from hurricanes. This is for the very simple and very clear reason that the overwhelming factor in the huge increase in US hurricane destruction over the recent decades is the pattern and manner of coastal development. To put it bluntly, people are chosing to move into high risk areas, they are not building structures that can withstand the inevitable storms, and government policy is underwriting these foolishly high risks.
Roger correctly applauds this statement as an example of feuding scientists putting aside scientific disagreements in an effort to clarify for policy makers what the socially relevant issues really are.
Now, wouldn't it be wonderful to see this same kind of joint declaration from the warring parties in the Hockey Stick debacle? How about a statement saying clearly for the record that regardless of the level of confidence of MBH98's conclusions, the IPCC's conclusions that 20th century warming is real and anthropogenic and its assessment of the dangers of further warming all have nothing to do with how warm or global the Medieval Warm Period was or was not.
It is my understanding that Climate Audit has in fact acknowledged this already.
I think the fact that this has not happened in the many years of this gloves-off, bench-clearing, jerseys-pulled-over-the-heads brawl illustrates the difference between a sincere scientific disagreement and a public relations misinformation campaign.