Climate science is going through the same change that chemistry went through in the 70s and biology in the 90s, ie a change from an observationally driven science dominated by practical experience and the ability to tell a story, to a theory driven system. Gray is on the side of cladistics, Trenberth on the side of DNA studies. It is not just biology where ontology begets phylogeny.

Do political and other extra-scientific considerations affect the scientific views of scientists? Of coure they do. This has been well established through research. This does not mean that scientists necessarily invent data or otherwise do bad science, as you suggest. You can be motivated by political considerations (e.g., “climate change is a problem worth dealing with”) and still do good scientific work! Just few starting points in the literature:

Barke, R., Jenkins-Smith, H., 1993. Politics and scientific expertise: scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Anal. 13, 425–439.

Hull, D.L., 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.

Jasanoff, S., Wynne, B., 1998. Science and decision making. In: Rayner, S., Malone, E. (Eds.), Human Choice and Climate Change, vol. 1: The Societal Framework. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, pp. 1–87.

Lepkowski,W., 2002b. Maize, genes, and peer review. Sci. Policy Perspect. 14, http://www.cspo.org/ourlibrary/documents/102502.html.

Morgan, M.G., Keith, D.W., 1995. Subjective judgments by climate experts. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29, A468–A476.

van der Sluijs, J., van Eijndhoven, J., Shackley, S., Wynne, B., 1998. Anchoring devices in science for policy: the case of consensus around climate sensitivity. Social Stud. Sci. 28 (2), 291–323.

You write, “Is global warming playing a role [in hurricanes]? That’s not a policy question any more than wondering if the MWP was warmer than today’s climate.” Oh my, if you really think these are purely scientific questions, or can be somehow separated from their broader political context, then we’ll just agree to disagree.

Thanks again for the exchange.

I agree that all scientists have views and biases. But that’s not what you said. You argued that scientists’ political views affect their scientific views. I disagree with this, and would ask what evidence you have beyond the two data points you cited. In my own experience, the multiple levels of verification that scientific results have to go through (peer review, subsequent retesting by the community) mean that producing flawed work in pursuit of a personal political agenda carries high risks of destroying scientific credibility (e.g., just consider your data points).

“The hurricane issue is quite different than the “hockey stick” debate, in that the focus is on policy, not abstract science.”

I disagree with this. The argument you cite between your data points is about attribution of the recent spate of hurricanes. Is global warming playing a role? That’s not a policy question any more than wondering if the MWP was warmer than today’s climate. Both have policy implications, but both are fundamentally well-posed scientific questions.

I agree that the IPCC will not address policy, but I do suspect they will address the question of what role global warming is playing in the occurrence and strength of hurricanes.

Regards.

Thanks for your comments. I think that you are way out of bounds calling Trenberth or Gray “a raving lunatic”. Surely, we can agree that both have had brilliant scientific careers, and even if we might disagree with their hypotheses, public relations skills or politics, each is earned the right to their views, no?

My hypothesis is that all scientists have political views and biases. I can point to plenty of evidence on this, e.g., first check if that scientist has a pulse. The myth that scientists are “above the fray” is of course one of the justfications for turning political debates into scientific debates. It’s also bunk.

I am less concerned about the “misuse of science” than bad decision making, and these are not the same thing. As a few commenters have observed on this site, one can legitimately justify a wide range of perspectives on hurricanes and climate.

The hurricane issue is quite different than the “hockey stick” debate, in that the focus is on policy, not abstract science. The people at both RealClimate and ClimateAudit vigorously assert that their debate is about “science” and not politics or policy. As readers here know, I don’t have much sympathy for this fantasy. On the hurricane issue the policy question is, can we use GHG policies to modulate hurricane damages in the future (and when)? And if not, how then should we be spending our finite resources to deal with this issue? When, for example, the American Meteorological Society used their authority and convening power to organize a congressional briefing yesterday, looking at the experts they chose, the clearly think that the issue is a GHG issue, and not a disaster mitigation issue. The hurricane issue is all about policy and politics.

The IPCC of course does not engage in explicit discussions of policy, particularly as related to hurricanes, so I would be surprised to see much useful on this subject in AR4, but let’s see.

You are of course correct. It is complicated. Let me recommend this paper for those interested:

Jacobs L (2001) Manipulators and manipulation: public opinion in a representative democracy, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 26, 6: 1361-1374.

I think you’ve overreacted a bit.

“Could it be that the views of many scientists about the science of hurricanes and climate change are colored by their own political preferences, just like those of the public?”

Let’s review: you have two data points, Bill Gray and Kevin Trenberth. One of these data points is a raving lunatic (I won’t say which one). Based on these two points, you’re extrapolating the behavior of the rest of the climate scientist community. Yesterday I flipped a coin twice and it came up heads both times. You’ve got me wondering if my next three thousand flips would also come up heads.

My experience is that the vast majority of scientists sit above (or below) the fray, with little opinion of the matter. Most of those that do have an opinion appear to fall in the reasonable middle ground — e.g., Webster and Emanuel have not oversold their claims; see also the realclimate.org post on this subject. In the end, I imagine you’ll find it hard to get much supporting data for your hypothesis.

The argument over hurricanes is exactly like every other argument in the climate change debate. A relatively small number of advocates (including some scientists with agendas/vendettas) twist the science to support their preferred policy position, and this of course gets quoted in the media. Misquoting Inspector Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find disagreement over science here!

The difference is that you have a dog in this fight, and I think you take the misuse of science very personally here. I hope you have some sympathy now for Mann and co-authors in the hockey stick debate. But in the end, this is just another ordinary everyday run-of-the-mill boring fight over science in the climate change debate.

As I’ve argued before, the key is to rely on assessments. I hope (and expect) this issue will be covered in the IPCC 4th assessment report, and we can point to that document as the authoritative answer to the question. People that disagree can then be tarred and feathered with confidence!

Regards.

I expect Roger Pielke Jr. is right that some have exaggerated the extent we can connect the dots right now between current AGW and current hurricanes, but it really doesn’t matter as a policy question. The reason to change GHG policies now is becaus…