I have often made the case that one of the best ways for scientists to depoliticze science is to clearly discuss the significance of scientific disputes for policy action. Today’s New York Times reports that 10 scientists involved in the sometimes acrimonious debate over hurricanes and global warming have prepared a statement that places their debate into policy context. Here is an excerpt from the NYT story:

(more…)

According to E&E Daily, James Hansen who was invited to appear at yesterday’s House Government Reform Committee, but did not appear, would have attended had John Christy not attended. According to E&E Daily (link, but a subscription site):

In the message Hansen sent to reporters to explain his absence from yesterday’s hearing, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies said he had a conflicting doctor appointment to deal with a cold that interacts with his asthma to create a drip in his lungs. But he also indicated he would have adjusted his schedule if the witness list did not also include skeptical points of view.

The only person on the witness list who’s views could be characterized as skeptical was John Christy. John is widely acknowledged by his peers as a highly qualified and accomplished climate scientist. He was, for example, on the CCSP Temperature Trends Committtee as well as the recent NRC Hockey Stick Committee, and particpates in the IPCC. So I am baffled why Jim Hansen would only appear if other legitimate perspectives are excluded. He might disagree with Christy’s views, but they are certainly appropriate to include on a Congressional panel.

Coming from someone who complained about being censored, it sounds like he’d like to do a bit censoring of his own. It also seems a bit odd for a high ranking government employee to refuse to offer testimony when called upon by Congress to do so. This helps to explain Chairman’s Davis’ obvious pique when mentioning Hansen in his opening comments yesterday.

Not long ago I criticized an AGU assessment of hurricane science for its demonstrably inaccurate treatment of seasonal climate forecasts. I hypothesized that the issue of seasonal hurricane forecasts had been caught up in the “hurricane-climate wars” between Bill Gray and Greg Holland. Holland and Peter Webster (who were both involved with preparing the AGU report) took serious issue with my even raising this hypothesis (how dare I!!), flatly denying any such relationship between the AGU report’s criticism of Gray’s seasonal forecasts and the global warming debate. However, In today’s hearing (that I participated in) Judy Curry’s testimony completely vindicates my raising this issue (Curry is a collaborator with Holland and Webster). Here is the relevant excerpt from her testimony (PDF):

(more…)

Here is a PDF of my Congressional testimony today before the House Government Reform Committee. We’ll link to the other testmony when available online.

Here is Hans von Storch’s testimony given today at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing on Questions Surrounding the “Hockey Stick” Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments.

Summary (pdf)

Prepared comments (pdf)

Congrats to NASA and its astronauts for the safe return of the shuttle yesterday. Here are a few interesting comments I have come across on the mission.

(more…)

I’ll be testifying before the House Government Reform Committee on Thursday, July 20. Details TBA here. The hearing is titled, “Climate Change: Understanding the Degree of the Problem.”

I’ll post my prepared testimony here on Thursday.

We’ll be offline for a short while. Kevin is away as well, so we won’t have much if any action here. See you in a few weeks!

PS. Comments on existing posts will remain open, behave yourselves;-)

This week I shipped off to Cambridge University Press my final revisions on my forthcoming book, The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. It is scheduled to be published early next year. Consequently, I’ll be shamelessly promoting the book here until then! An article in this week’s Nature on science and advocacy (Thanks CW!) makes me think that the book is well timed, here is an excerpt:

(more…)

Yesterday I was asked by a reporter at the Arizona Daily Star to read and offer my thoughts on a just-out paper in Science by Westerling et al. on trends in forest fires and the possible role of climate change. The resulting news story was interesting, not least because it grossly mischaracterizes my views on climate change, despite having been asked directly by the reporter what my views are on the subject. So I just sent in the following letter to the editor of that paper.

(more…)