The anti-science position of our administration represents my own take on an interesting post by Roger Pielke Jr.
His own work is cited and inaccurately represented. You might think my last post was too extreme, I say not. Read this, you won’t believe it.
the Air Vent 
If I hypothesize that the sun revolves around the earth, which of Kepler’s laws is violated?
Jeff, I think those of us who tend to read and analyze more than the contents of these reports should not really be surprised by its contents and intent. These reports are very simply what an adversarial lawyer would present in a court room in presenting an obviously one-sided view of the evidence favoring his client. In a court case, we, of course, expect to hear the other side and judge which side the evidence favors.
I think were so many go wrong in their reactions is assuming that these documents are a scientific review and not a political statement. I would also suggest that the handling of these issues to formulate government policy and mitigations is not that different for climate related issues than the process used in other policy areas. It unfortunately is the way that governments do business.
My major beef would be if those writing and using these documents claimed that the process was entirely scientifically motivated and giving a comprehensive review of the subject at hand. I think it is more important for the thinking person to recognize the evidence that these reports present for their being a marketing device and what is being marketed.
Wise words. – I should settle down sometimes. The claim on blogs and media that this is somehow the face of science…
Please do not settle down.
Kenneth Fritsch #2 seems to think it is perfectly acceptable for politicians to lie, to mislead, to put into place policies that benefit them regardless of what it does to society.
I’m must be getting too old but I have have become totally intolerant of lies or of failure to perform due diligence. As an engineer failure is not an option. Failure to perform due diligence means the project will fail and my job is gone and twenty other people may loose their jobs too. Any actual lies can result in fines and possible imprisonment. But these government paid (snip) are immune from being held accountable and people like Mr. Fritch stand up and defend them for lying.
#4, I think Kenneth was actually calling them out and meant we need to expect less from politicians and polyscienticians and know them for what they are. Liewyers.
I read no defense of the behavior.
Updated: And I doubt I’ll settle down. 🙂
Remeber, most journalists have the math/science background of an 8th grade student. Most college degrees are from the liberal arts. Over half of the population has a below median IQ (had to throw that in for a statistical chuckle).
Mark
I have a great aversion to politicians and in a non-partisan way. You take me backwards. I am saying that we should not be surprised by how politicians and government advocate for policy and laws because they have been doing just that for years and going back to the Roman Empire.
I am bothered when a political action is foisted off as being scientifically based and motivated. Advocacy for AGW and immediate mitigation for it is rather easy to spot when its reports and reviews see absolutely nothing about GW that would be beneficial. A science report would give evidence from both sides and let the chips fall where they may.
I would love to have laws that would more easily make politicians accountable for the truths of their statements and including throwing them in jail. My point would be that until a larger percentage of the voting constituencies feel this way we can fuss all we want but nothing substantial will change.
When, what I thought was more inline with the founding fathers vision, whereby a prospective politician would be required to be pryed from his real life career to serve in government,happens, and we no longer see people clamoring to be a politician, I will think we might be on the right track.