On William Gray:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000536reader_request_comm.html

Gray is definitely a partisan in the hurricane-climate debate and he (and others) have gone over-the-top in some of their public comments to be certain. I’d much prefer a more civil debate. For my views on this debate see:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001005wmo_consensus_statem.html

Gray does however correctly represent the role of societal factors in damage trends in all that I’ve seen.

As far as his views on global warming generally, he is clearly outside of the mainstream in his views, and others are more qualified than I to critique these views.

I don’t think I recall reading any criticism of William Gray though, and he cleary misrepresents the natural vs anthropogenic hurricane intensity debate and you seem well versed in that area.

Thanks. Your comments go a long ways to explaining the dynamics I have observed that motivated this post!

http://tc.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/suppl_4/iv68?ct

Methods: …. depositions and trial testimony transcripts … made by expert witnesses representing the tobacco industry …. Industry-supported publications within the peer-reviewed literature were also examined for statements on exposure misclassification, meta-analysis, and confounding.

Results: The witnesses challenged causation …. by citing limitations of epidemiologic research, raising methodological and statistical issues, and disputing biological plausibility. Though not often cited directly by the witnesses, the defence tactics mirrored the strategies used in industry-funded reports in the peer-reviewed literature.

This sort of research on the tactics used to influence public policy would be particularly interesting , when the same people apply the same tactics for, say, Western Fuels as they did for their previous industrial sponsor.

It’s early yet — you won’t have exact parallels to the tobacco court cases to look at. But I think you’d find it interesting.

You’ve entered a space that journalists have long occupied. People with strong biases about a subject look to you for confirmation of those biases, and see it as a failing on your part when you don’t point out what is, to them, obvious. Your blog has acquired the additional characteristic (also common to mainstream media publications) of being viewed by some readers as something of a commons, with the additional expectations that readers feel comfortable telling you what you ought to do here.