« Disasters »

As I said, charismatic megaweather. However one might wish it weren't so, enhanced tropical cyclones are going to get the attention that AGW effects like sea level rise and ocean acidification ought to be getting. I think it would be useful to consider why that's true and how one might fashion useful policy given it. Or one could continue to beat one's head against the wall.

Here's a smaller-scale example of the same kind of problem: In Oakland CA, there are now health studies in place showing that poor aor quality, much of it relating to diesel emissions associated with the Port of Oakland, is having a significant effect on the local population in terms of mortality and disease of various sorts. Statistically, this problem is rather worse than violent crime, yet people pay far more attention to the latter than the former. IMHO, an effective strategy for obtaining action on the air quality problem needs to incorporate an understanding of why this is true.

Roger, you should know better than to subject a straw man to hurricane-force winds. Would it be absurd to attribute a portion of Katrina's strength to AGW? A little less so, perhaps.

Steve-

Thanks for your comments. I've reformulated your comment in a different context below:

"However one might wish it weren't so, THE THREAT OF WMDs IS going to get the attention that MORE IMPORTANT effects like DEMOCRATIZATION and OIL ought to be getting. I think it would be useful to consider why that's true and how one might fashion useful policy given it."

That the ends justify the means has a grip on most everyone these days. No wonder institutions of science and democracy are suffering!

Roger, why the surprise? Its all part of the great concensus.

Roger,

I suspect the difference between the AGW-GHG connection and the WMD-Iraq question is that IF the debate had been framed and understood by the public in terms of spreading democracy and oil security, there would not have been an Iraq war, or CERTAINLY been much greater opposition to it. If people understood the real risks of, to use Steve's example, ocean acidification and sea level rise, there would still be a push for GHG emissions reductions.

Both of the points I raise above are speculative, educated guesses, but perhaps there is data to back them up? I dont have time to try to find out... I would be interested to know though...

This Time piece was so bad, I don't think we can really debate anything on it :)

The Times piece would have been much better if it found William Gray to be one of the 100 most influential people. Forgive my cynicism.

Roger appears to be pushing the idea that people who disagree with him believe that the means justify the ends. In this, he appears to have signed off on the dotted line himself. In one sense, I agree with Sean, that the piece itself should be ignored in terms of what it says about climate. In another it is a marker of how, in a very short time, the issue of AGW intensification of cyclone intensity has pushed itself forward into the public arena. Given Roger's position he will use any means to oppose the thought.

About Katrina while it may be very likely that a portion of Katrina's strength is attributable to AGW, the uncertainty around any estimate of just how much is very large. So large that claiming that the resulting AGW effects of Katrina on New Orleans can be estimated is inappropriate.