Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney have a thoughtful article on media coverage of hurricanes and global warming here.

They have some interesting analysis and quotes, such as this one from Andy Revkin:

“The great strength of the global warming argument lies in the balance of the evidence. The closer you bore into specific impacts like hurricanes, however, the more equivocal the science gets.”

They also cite those who would use the issue of hurricanes to argue for and against emissions reductions (see original for links):

On the one hand, a who’s who of Democratic leaders including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Jimmy Carter cited the recent scientific findings to warn that global warming had contributed to the hurricane problem, and to push for action on greenhouse gas emissions.

Variations on this message appeared in two September columns by Nicholas Kristof and two editorials at The New York Times, but also in work by columnists at the Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, and The Washington Post. Skeptics responded by disputing the scientific evidence and insisting that no serious cuts in emissions were required. “There is no relationship between global warming and the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes. Period,” Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote, rather incautiously, in early September. Others suggested the real focus should be on adapting coastal areas to the likelihood of future disasters. Later would come reports of personal fights between scientists, and allegations of suppression of dissent at government agencies.

They cite some of our work, but I think they fall a bit into the on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand sort of reporting that they criticize when they write:

On the one hand, University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. and his colleagues argue that by far the most important factors influencing our susceptibility to hurricanes are “growing population and wealth in exposed coastal locations.” When viewed in comparison with the urgent need to address this societally-induced vulnerability, they maintain that the question of whether or not hurricanes might themselves be growing stronger is quickly overshadowed in significance. On the other hand, in an article in the May issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, a group of leading climate scientists and hurricane experts claim that the balance of the evidence already suggests a human impact on hurricanes, and urge a more precautionary approach to policy.

In reality there is no apparent difference of views on policy options between the two perspectives cited by Nisbet and Mooney. There is in fact overlap in authorship between the Anthes et al. paper that they cite and the recent Emanuel et al. statement, whcih I strongly support. Nisbet and Mooney could have been a bit more clear on this.

Their article is strong in calling for science reporters, as well as scientists, to establish the policy context of contested issues:

n sum, science writers continue to worry about how the issue of hurricanes and global warming is being used politically, and many also assert that caution demands the publication of more research before they can move ahead on the story. These are all legitimate concerns, and the pressure exerted by both editors and media watchdogs to not “take sides” is real. Yet given their specialization and experience, science writers are perhaps uniquely qualified to shield themselves from allegations of bias, and to interpret the policy implications of the subjects they’re covering for readers. As long as they ground their stories in thorough, fair-minded reporting and do not stray into unsupported speculation or unnecessary argumentation, these journalists could provide a true public service. Such changes in how journalists and scientists negotiate what counts as news could mean that, when the next big storm hits, we have a chance to bring the policy questions into sharper focus. Otherwise, the public will be left with an all-too-familiar repeating narrative of conflict and doubt/

Overall, this is a really nice article, but it leaves me wondering, what is the role of a science journalist in a democracy anyway?