NOAA has edited its press release that originally asserted a “consensus” among NOAA scientists, which we discussed here. How does this change the landscape of the hurricane climate issue? While it is a positive step forward for public relations, it doesn’t alter the current state of the science or most importantly, our understanding of what sorts of policy actions make the most sense in hurricane policy. Read on for details.


The material that NOAA added yesterday to their September 2005 press release reads as follows:

EDITOR’S NOTE: This consensus in this on-line magazine story represents the views of some NOAA hurricane researchers and forecasters, but does not necessarily represent the views of all NOAA scientists. It was not the intention of this article to discount the presence of a human-induced global warming element or to attempt to claim that such an element is not present. There is a robust, on-going discussion on hurricanes and climate change within NOAA and the scientific community.

The headline and paragraph could have more clearly stated:

“Agreement Among Some NOAA Hurricane Researchers and Forecasters”

There is agreement among a number of NOAA hurricane researchers and forecasters that recent increases in hurricane activity are primarily the result of natural fluctuations in the tropical climate system known as the tropical multi-decadal signal.”

The Wall Street Journal discussed this in an article today, and adds this detail:

Scott Smullen, NOAA’s deputy director of public affairs, said the article was never meant to be an official position, and added that the use of the word “consensus” was a mistake made by one of his staff members. “There is no consensus,” Mr. Smullen said.

As we’ve stated before, NOAA should not be in the business of issuing an agency perspective on areas of science, so from the perspective of NOAA public relations this would seem to be a positive step. But what does it tell us about the science of hurricanes and climate change? Absolutely nothing. It has been no secret that different scientists have different firmly held views about what future research will reveal. Because of the overlay of politics this has become a nasty personal debate among some scientists, fanned by media attention, fame, and hubris. What should we observers expect? Dan Sarewitz provides a guide:

When political stakes associated with a controversy are relatively low, high certainty is more permissible than when the stakes are high (e.g., Collingridge and Reeve, 1986). Fewer disciplines, institutions, and stakeholders are likely to have strong and competing interests in any particular assertion of uncertainty levels. . . But when the costs and benefits associated with action on a controversy begin to emerge and implicate a variety of interests, both political and scientific scrutiny of the problem will increase, as will sources of uncertainty.

In short, we should expect to see many studies on this subject coming out in the peer reviewed literature in coming years. Some will likely be supportive of the notion that GHGs, others will not. Advocates and scientists alike will cherry pick among these to make their case. And because the issue is so politicized only the most high-minded and responsible scientists will avoid getting caught up in mud slinging. From where I sit, both Kerry Emanuel and Chris Landsea, on different sides of this issue, have exemplified such responsibility.

But this public debate over global warming and hurricanes is also dangerous. It completely drowns out discussion, debate, and advocacy about those actions most likely to be effective with respect to hurricane policy. Politics sure is fun, and conflict draws attention. But the reality is that the scientific debate over hurricanes and climate change is going to be with us for many, many years. No matter how it is resolved, if ever, one way or another it won’t be particularly significant for policy. And the U.S. hurricane season is less than 4 months away.