Doesn't matter. He's a scientific expert in the eyes of the media and the public and "scientists" allow him, by assent, to use their results for his own purposes. But again, this is what science has become, not what you want it to be.
So what's your criticism of this?
Methodology. Many sciences have gotten to the point where they are simply the art of finding one data point and then calculating the best-fit straight line.
I'd certainly be inclined to be skeptical of this or any other research where the author was a clear advocate of one position or other.
Well, you weren't the referee, were you? It managed to get into JAMA and then the NYT. And now, the ether.
It's not an issue of rigor. It's an issue of the clear difference between science and mathematics. Your misunderstanding of the former does you no credit.
Oh, I think I understand it quite well. Entirely too well.
He's a Congressman. Not even the MSM is stupid enough to confuse congresscritters with scientists. I did a google search using the terms 'patrick kennedy' and 'scientist' and couldn't find a single reference to Kennedy as a scientific expert.
Every scientist I've seen interviewed has denied that there's any obvious connection between the frequency of hurricanes and global warming. Most make the point that hurricanes wax and wane with a well-established cycle, and there's no evidence the cycle has been changed by anything humans have done. Many brought up Hurricane Camille, and the great storms of the 30's and early 40's.
Is just making stuff up as you go along part of your grand vision of mathematics?