Pielke and Sarawitz riled many climate scientists with their implied accusation that research funding for climate science was a kind of hush money to keep the scientists quietly working in the lab instead of saying that we already knew as much about the effects of climate change as was feasible and necessary for policy purposes.

Interestingly, in the climate research community, James Hansen probably comes closest to what Pielke & Sarawitz were calling for, although to P&S he may be an object lesson in “be careful what you ask for.” (To be fair, P&S do emphasize the need for research on the effects of different policy interventions before committing to a particular course of action, such as carbon abatement. This distinguishes them from Hansen, who is single-mindedly focused on GHG mitigation.)

As Bruggeman notes, Mooney and most others have consistently used “War on Science” with respect to the former, while Clinton’s latest expands the boundary to comprehend the latter.

Does this enrich our understanding or blur important distinctions? I think the latter. Making “war on science” include funding decisions reinforces the impression that scientists are just another special interest group that wants its pork.

I’d contrast this with a parallel rhetorical move that enriches discussions: Pielke’s use of the phrase “linear model” in THB. Previous to THB, I had seen linear model used only in the context of funding policy (e.g., in Nathan Rosenberg’s and David Mowery’s masterful dissections of linear models of R&D and innovation), but by bringing the phrase into the vocabulary of science-for-policy, Pielke enriches the discussion and makes illuminating parallels between SfP issues (climate change, geological disposal of nuclear waste, etc.) and PfS issues (stem cell research, etc.).

It’s well known that there aren’t as hard lines between PfS and SfP as Brooks may once have thought, but it’s still worth noting that the lack of hard lines does not render the distinction meaningless, so we should be thoughtful about extending metaphors from one part of the science & policy domain into the other.

If you think this “conversion” to a carbon free economy is going to be painless and research money will still flow, consider the effect of cutting back on coal plants and how that’s increasing energy prices and aggravating this recession. If you think energy propaganda isn’t affecting the current economic situation, you have the wool pulled over your eyes.