Also, thanks for the pointer to the NOAA ENSO advisory!

Roger writes above:
” Piltz neglects to tell …
…there is no reason to believe
…policy cannot have a discernible effect …
…subtlely suggesting the opposite.
Ironic in a post about scientific integrity, huh?”

Roger, this sort of terribly confused sentence construction is why people puzzle over whether your meaning is so convoluted, wondering if you’re trying to spin your opinion into what you write while claiming to be providing clear scientific fact.

“neglects … no … cannnot … discernible … subtley [sic] suggesting … opposite …. Ironic … integrity.”

As you conclude — “huh?”

You could have written:

“Pilz should have written, as I do whenever “hurricane” is mentioned, that the problem is the low lying construction, not the hurricane intensity. Everyone should mention this in any sentence that includes the word ‘hurricane’ — huh?”

Be direct. Don’t use triple and quadruple negatives — in writing, as in infrastructure, stay away from low lying construction.

I agree that it was totally bone-headed to lie about why the document was not released, but I think Plitz demonstrates what the bureaucrats were afraid of and what you alluded to in your post.

The document correctly points out that according to some recent research, global warming (whatever the reason) MAY have an impact on hurricane intensity and COULD extend the current active period longer. Both statements are speculative, unquantified and future oriented. This in no way suggests that Katrina happened because of man-made global warming or that restricting CO2 emissions would be an effective way of reducing future hurricane damage.

Yet, Plitz writes…”That (the statements) is a linkage the administration has taken pains to keep the public from making, for reasons having to do with the political fallout from Hurricane Katrina and the administration’s desire to fend off public pressure for a stronger global warming mitigation policy.”

That linkage does not exist, yet the administration knew it would be spun that way. They also knew that any attempt to clarify the science would be further spun as back-pedaling and/or obfuscation.

Lying about why the document was not released only made it worse, for now Conrad Lautenbacher has been caught, the rather bland statements have been spun anyway, and the spinners are spinning the lie as an attempt to hide scientific truth.

In reality, withholding the document looks like an attempt to prevent the misuse of science! A noble goal, but stupid execution.

Thanks for weighing in!

You accuse me of “arguing by innuendo” and here I thought I was being quite explicit;-)

Let me put the point another way and as direct as I can. You are criticizing NOAA, appropriately in my view, for not sharing what you consider to be policy relevant scientific information. Yet, when I assert that you are not sharing policy relevant scientific information, it becomes “my agenda”? By this logic is it fair then for NOAA to respond to your claims of its censorship that they simply do not share “your agenda”? Of course not!

NOAA cherrypicks information for the same reason that you or I do — to advance an agenda. And being called on it is perfectly fair. For NOAA, for you, for me.

Thanks!

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000938noaas_mystery_hurri.html

However, it is worth pointing out that Piltz neglects to tell his readers that there is no reason to believe that mitigation policy cannot have a discernible effect on hurricane impacts, subtlely suggesting the opposite. Ironic in a post about scientific integrity, huh?

The lack of connection between climate mitigation and future hurricane impacts is what makes the Administration’s actions so completely bone-headed. Dave Roberts at Grist explains this very well:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/9/27/124558/163

Thanks!

Thanks!

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/noaa-scientists-statement/