Talk:Scientists debate whether Hurricane Katrina was aggravated by global warming

North Atlantic

Why does Voigt show more solidarity than Trittin? Because he has a different opinion on the cause of the hurricane? It seems to me that the article is not NPOV towards the end.

"believed to due to cool water in the North Atlantic": Which part of the North Atlantic did Katerina cross? (SEWilco 16:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC))

The part of the North Atlantic that washes the east coast of Florida. Mpulier 01:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to publish links to raw data for those readers who want to crunch some numbers themselves? Here is a good link to Atlantic hurricane history from 1851-2004: [1] --cmpalmer 17:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC) According to scientist on radio WOAI, San Antonio, Tx, global warming has nothing to do with numbers of larger hurricanes. From 1930 to 1950 9 larger (catagory 4 and 5) hurricanes hit the US in each ten year time periods. Since then fewer have occured down to half.

No junk science here

Professor William Gray expressed strong distaste for Professor Kerry Emanuel's expert, long, documented and carefully reasoned article in the highly respected scientific journal Nature. The history of science is full of vituperative disagreements between eminent scientists. That does not mean that one or the other antagonist necessarily practices "junk science". The present news article should present the fact that there is serious debate and should give an idea about just where the sides differ, be it on the reliability and relevance of available data, the approach to its analysis, the nature and extent of conclusions to be drawn from the analysis or any policy suggestions to be drawn from the conclusions. The opinion of a prejudiced journalist is irrelevant and not worth mentioning in the Wikinews article. The way politicians are taking sides or using the debate may not fit into the headline of this article but it provides a bit of context. Whether some scientists are using the situation to push personal political beliefs is also of some interest, but we have no evidence that the leading hurricane experts are engaged in anything other than a scientific debate. I am removing the allusions to Milloy from the article and preserving here Rakista's comment about him: "Steven Milloy of 'Junk Science' is one of the only journalists in the United States who consistently rejects all global warming theories out of hand. He equates the blaming of global warming on hurricanes to a chicken little hypothesis and actively discourages any critical thought on the matter by ignoring peer reviewed articles of science for his own brand of 'common sense' psuedoscience [sic]". Mpulier 01:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Milloy provides several of the references in this article. Which of the material which was used is wrong? (SEWilco 04:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC))

I'm confused here. The Wikinews article headline seems to be about a debate between scientists. The Wikinews article content seems to be about that and about politicians blaming global warming or not. Milloy's article is mainly about how the media are blaming global warming or denying that... and then Milloy confuses global warming with anthropogenic contributions to global warming, which is quite a separate issue. Milloy's article seems scarcely relevant to the headline. If his article inspired the creation of the Wikinews article does that alone require including his article as a reference? It seems to me that a reader who wishes to confirm statements made in a Wikinews article should be presented with "sources" here, but preferably with original sources, not derivative ones like Milloy's article, and only with relevant ones, not articles about something else, like Milloy's. Whether Milloy's citations are accurate or not is beside the point. True, he does provide a bunch of references if one wishes to pursue the issue of news media issuing half-baked theories, but is that what this Wikinews article is about? If so, the headline should reflect that, and if so, it's not worthy of being published. News media are always full of half-baked theories about something or other. Are we into a consequentialist debate about what to do about the anthropogenic component of global warming? That's worthy of serious exploration, but I don't think Wikinews is the place for that. Mpulier 06:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)