sunsettommy
01-23-2006, 07:33 AM
From WORLDCLIMATE REPORT,
January 20, 2006
Donald Kennedy: Setting Science Back (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/01/20/donald-kennedy-setting-science-back/)
Excerpt:
Filed under: Climate Politics (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-politics/), Hurricanes (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-extreme/hurricanes/) —
Donald Kennedy, the Editor-in-Chief of Science magazine, lately seems more bent on setting science back rather than advancing it.
His editorial page rants on global warming are as predictable as the content of most of the climate change articles in his journal. It hasn’t been lost on many in the science community that he simply refuses to print any “perspectives” piece that doesn’t go along with his take on climate change. If other points of view are so uninformed, why doesn’t he let them out so that they can be held up to ridicule?
But now, observers of the global warming war are beginning to question Kennedy’s competence.
His January 6th editorial prompted Roger Pielke, Jr. to wonder “Does Donald Kennedy Read Science? (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/author_pielke_jr_r/000667does_donald_kennedy_.html)”
Here’s what Pielke, Jr. has to say in his popular science and policy blog Prometheus (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/):In an editorial in the 6 January 2006 issue of Science editor Donald Kennedy writes, “The consequences of the past century’s temperature increase are becoming dramatically apparent in the increased frequency of extreme weather events …”
In a letter published in Science 9 December 2005 written to correct another set of unsupportable claims published in Science about extreme weather events, I wrote,
“Over recent decades, the IPCC found no long-term global trends in extratropical cyclones (i.e., winter storms), in “droughts or wet spells,” or in “tornados, hail, and other severe weather”… A recent study by the International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group concluded that it was unable to detect an anthropogenic signal in global precipitation.”
And even though my brief discussion of hurricanes got lost in the page-proof process (a correction is pending), recent research indicates no increase in the global frequency of tropical cyclones (e.g., Webster et al. 2005), and no long-term increase in the number or intensity of storms striking the U.S. (e.g., Landsea 2005). In short, there is no evidence to support Kennedy’s claim of an “increased frequency of extreme weather events” that can be attributed to increasing global temperatures.
This issue is about more than simply getting the science right. In advancing an explicitly political agenda from a very influential position, Prof. Kennedy is making claims for particular policy actions that won’t work as advertised. As we have written umpteen times here, and backed with research, yes greenhouse gas reductions make sense, but not as a policy instrument for addressing the escalating societal impacts of extreme events. While I have sympathies for Prof. Kennedy’s politics, as a matter of policy, Professor Kennedy’s argument is simply wrong.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/01/20/donald-kennedy-setting-science-back/#more-135
lot more in the link.
The EDITOR of Science is showing his poor judgement in the Global Warming debate.
January 20, 2006
Donald Kennedy: Setting Science Back (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/01/20/donald-kennedy-setting-science-back/)
Excerpt:
Filed under: Climate Politics (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-politics/), Hurricanes (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-extreme/hurricanes/) —
Donald Kennedy, the Editor-in-Chief of Science magazine, lately seems more bent on setting science back rather than advancing it.
His editorial page rants on global warming are as predictable as the content of most of the climate change articles in his journal. It hasn’t been lost on many in the science community that he simply refuses to print any “perspectives” piece that doesn’t go along with his take on climate change. If other points of view are so uninformed, why doesn’t he let them out so that they can be held up to ridicule?
But now, observers of the global warming war are beginning to question Kennedy’s competence.
His January 6th editorial prompted Roger Pielke, Jr. to wonder “Does Donald Kennedy Read Science? (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/author_pielke_jr_r/000667does_donald_kennedy_.html)”
Here’s what Pielke, Jr. has to say in his popular science and policy blog Prometheus (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/):In an editorial in the 6 January 2006 issue of Science editor Donald Kennedy writes, “The consequences of the past century’s temperature increase are becoming dramatically apparent in the increased frequency of extreme weather events …”
In a letter published in Science 9 December 2005 written to correct another set of unsupportable claims published in Science about extreme weather events, I wrote,
“Over recent decades, the IPCC found no long-term global trends in extratropical cyclones (i.e., winter storms), in “droughts or wet spells,” or in “tornados, hail, and other severe weather”… A recent study by the International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group concluded that it was unable to detect an anthropogenic signal in global precipitation.”
And even though my brief discussion of hurricanes got lost in the page-proof process (a correction is pending), recent research indicates no increase in the global frequency of tropical cyclones (e.g., Webster et al. 2005), and no long-term increase in the number or intensity of storms striking the U.S. (e.g., Landsea 2005). In short, there is no evidence to support Kennedy’s claim of an “increased frequency of extreme weather events” that can be attributed to increasing global temperatures.
This issue is about more than simply getting the science right. In advancing an explicitly political agenda from a very influential position, Prof. Kennedy is making claims for particular policy actions that won’t work as advertised. As we have written umpteen times here, and backed with research, yes greenhouse gas reductions make sense, but not as a policy instrument for addressing the escalating societal impacts of extreme events. While I have sympathies for Prof. Kennedy’s politics, as a matter of policy, Professor Kennedy’s argument is simply wrong.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/01/20/donald-kennedy-setting-science-back/#more-135
lot more in the link.
The EDITOR of Science is showing his poor judgement in the Global Warming debate.