Donald Kennedy seems to be mocking science itself when he attempts to attribute the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina to human-caused global warming.
He overlooks, or maybe just doesn't care about, the combined opinions of nearly every hurricane scientist polled on the issue.
Further, he cites a study by Emanuel as data, but one finds that Emanuel himself states bluntly: (In answer to the question: Is global warming causing more hurricanes?) "No. The global, annual frequency of tropical cyclones (the generic, meteorological term for the storm that is called a tropical storm or hurricane in the Atlantic region) is about 90, plus or minus 10. There is no indication whatsoever of a long-term trend in this number." (1) and in answer to the question "I gather from this last discussion that it would be absurd to attribute the Katrina disaster to global warming?"—"Yes, it would be absurd"(1).
How is it that Science, one of America's leading science journals, can print an editorial containing personal opinions, stated as fact, that are not only not supported by the science on the topic, but are considered "absurd" by cited experts?
Reference
1) Please see http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm.
E-Letters: ![[Read E-Letter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
