What rage and ad hominems are you referring to? When a polarized debate is underway, fence-sitters are often viewed with suspicion. I suspect that Roger understand very well that it comes with the “non-skeptical heretic” territory he has tried to stake out. Suspecting Roger of being a closet Republican is hardly an ad hominem, and though it may represent a tribal suspicion, it is hardly rage.

Your puzzlement about what “political activists” now will do as AGW is acknwoledged is itself puzzling – they are aware that the devil is in the details, as the Peter Brown article you pointed to describes so well, and will now focus on influencing the developing legislative agenda, both directly and through trying to maintain public pressure.

Likewise, those pundits who once strongly supported the view that the climate was not changing, or if it is that humans play no role, can be expected (if they wish to retain their credibility) to vociferously adopt the position that we should do nothing about (other than to half-heartedly support “adaptation” aid to the developing world) and to mock all who advocate any new rules, while encouraging continued denials by the willfully misinformed.

Industry groups will of course battle for advantage and pork.

Judy-

You ask: “Surely Waxman’s letter is not expected to be a complete literature review?”

No, this is exactly what the WMO Statement does and why it should be cited, even if it suggests that there is not yet complete certainty on this issue. On climate science generally one should cite the IPCC, not Soon and Baliunas. Why not the same standards for the other area of science? Why you would see fit to debate this point is beyond me. Your exploration of my motives, while interesting and I suppose fair here at RC, may be appropriate behavior for anonymous public commenters, but do they really present you as a leadings scientist in the best light?

Lets agree that you disagree that the WMO consensus is actually a consensus. Any other substantive disagreements with my testimony (aside from me personally)?

Citing scientific consensus statements only when politically convenient is not good if one wants to assert the authority of consensus.

In other words Mr. Waxman might do policy oversight, not just political oversight. This theme came up several times in the hearing. It is in my view the only way that Congress will change agency communication practices, if that is indeed the intent.

Thanks.

It seems to me that the “both sides do it” theme by itself sidesteps the responsibility of the administration, and is an encouragement for Dems to do the same thing when they have the opportunity.

Your interesting comments are also welcome. With all due respect, in regards to your latest — Huh??

I asserted in my testimony that citing Emanuel (2005), Webster et al (2005) and Mann and Emanuel (2005) represented a selective presentation of the literature on hurricanes and global warming, especially in the context of the recent consensus statement from the WMO endorsed by the AMS (how could that be neglected?!?), which said of the debate over the trends documented in the first two of these papers:

“This is still hotly debated area for which we can provide no definitive conclusion.”

Here is what WMO says about Mann/Emanuel:

“The possibility that greenhouse gas induced global warming may have already caused a substantial increase in some tropical cyclone indices has been raised (e.g. Mann and Emanuel, 2006), but no consensus has been reached on this issue.”

No consensus. Hotly debated. Seems quite clear. Why anyone would go to the mat on this point is beyond me. There is a debate ongoing in the community. It is not necessary to assess certainty. In fact assessing such certainty misrepresents the science. So why do it?

[5 to 8, 2 to 3?? Not at all relevant to my point!]

Thanks!

“The scientific debate concerning the Webster et al and Emanuel papers is not as to whether global warming can cause a trend in tropical cyclone intensities. The more relevant question is how large a change: a relatively small one several decades into the future or large changes occurring today? Currently published theory and numerical modeling results suggest the former, which is inconsistent with the observational studies of Emanuel (2005) and Webster et al. (2005) by a factor of 5 to 8 (for the Emanuel study). The debate is on this important quantification as to whether such a signal can be detected in the historical data base, and whether it is possible to isolate the forced response of the climate system in the presence of substantial decadal and multi-decadal natural variability. This is still hotly debated area for which we can provide no definitive conclusion.”

By the way, the factor of 5 to 8 in this statement is incorrect; it is a factor of 2 to 3.

This was the part I found most irritating. I’ve posted previously to rebut many of your other statements, I won’t repeat myself here. But I was surprised by your testimony, since i found it to miss the mark in terms of being relevant to the topic of the hearing. I don’t think anyone is buying your “science as politics” schtick, other than a few academic policy wonk types (and wishful thinking by some advocacy groups). The scientists don’t buy it, and neither apparently do the policy makers.

You have a low and useless bar for confidence in science.

Political consensus is a tool of dictatorship, rather than democracy. Democracy requires an electable alternative.

The reputation of science and scientists is at stake. Given the daily media hype and If, as I suspect, we are heading for a period of solar induced ‘global cooling,’ no-one is going to believe a damn word scientists say ever again.