Further Politicization of Science

[Wig of Doom]

I seem to recall Steven commenting on this kind of thing in PD. But if not, then strike it down.

Have you seen this bit of nastiness: http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/06232005_1570.htm

in particular the letter to Michael Mann (cue Miami Vice jokes), which basically demands information on every bit of work he's ever done related to climate issues.

Barton is a North Texas congressman whose primary task seems to be protecting heavily polluting cement mills in his district.

Lysenko!! Back in da houuuuuuuuussssse!!

The Wall St. Journal editorial page is dictating what scientific research is reasonable or not? Okay, that's the End Times for you.

To see the WSJ get a proper comeuppance wrt these things, I refer you to http://www.realclimate.org.


(via http://atrios.blogspot.com and http://www.chriscmooney.com.)

[bartl]

Lysenko!! Back in da houuuuuuuuussssse!!

The Wall St. Journal editorial page is dictating what scientific research is reasonable or not? Okay, that's the End Times for you.
Except the article you quote uses the time-honored logical fallacy of changing the subject. There is a difference among:

1) Is global warming really happening?

and

2) What is the contribution, if any, that human activity is adding to (or subtracting from) global warming?

and, finally,

3) What is the proof that the Kyoto protocols will help prevent global warming, by how much, and are there more effective and less costly ways of achieving the same or better results?

It's interesting that when question #3 is asked, question #1 is all too often answered.

[fumetti]

I always chuckle at Dubya's response to global warming questions. He's still waiting for the "facts" to all come out.

He sure as hell wasn't so cautious when it came to getting American kids killed in Iraq.

[Steven Grant]

That didn't require a scientific judgment.