Every year since 1989 the U.S. Global Change Research Program has released a report titled “Our Changing Planet” which provides a concise overview of research conducted under the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) as well as a summary of program activities and agency budgets. (The reports from 1995 are available online here.)

Yesterday the USGCRP released its 2005 “Our Changing Planet” report. Somewhat surprisingly the New York Times today, in an article by Andy Revkin, sought to portray this report as a “striking shift in the way the Bush administration has portrayed the science of climate change.”

This is a surprise because the 2003 edition of “Our Changing Planet”, while perhaps somewhat more staid in comparison to the 2005 report, nonetheless contains numerous references to human-caused climate change and predictions of its future, negative impacts. The USGCRP is after all a multi-billion research program motivated by evidence that humans are causing climate change and the desire to develop policy responses. It is hard to see what the news here is. The fact that the 2005 report echoes much of the language of earlier reports does not seem to me to be a striking change or motivated by any possible “shift in focus” of the Bush Administration.

More fundamentally, it appears that some are trying to “box in” the Bush Administration by getting it to admit the consensus view on climate change. Highlighting the scientific consensus as reflected in federal agency documents has been one such strategy (e.g., see this 2003 NPR interview with Andy Revkin on his earlier reporting about how the Administration excised some text on climate change from an EPA repot). The thinking may be that if the Administration is forced to admit the science then particular policies are necessarily compelled. This is a good example of the “linear” thinking that I described (and criticized) in a recent paper on science in politics and policy. The thinking behind such strategies may be that if agreement can be reached (or forced, in this case) on the science, then agreement among political opponents must follow on policy actions.

But what if scientific consensus doesn’t compel political consensus? Specifically, what if the Bush Administration decides to publicly accept the scientific consensus on climate change but then maintains its business-as-usual approach to climate policy justified in terms of jobs or economics, or international trade? This concern was raised by one representative of an environmental group in the Times article:

“At the same time, the report did not please environmental groups, which have repeatedly criticized Mr. Bush for opposing efforts to require restrictions on the gases linked to global warming, though he has gradually come around to the position that warming is at least partly caused by emissions. “The Bush administration on the one hand isn’t doing anything about the problem, but on the other hand can’t deny the growing science behind global warming,” said Jeremy Symons of the National Wildlife Federation.”

The New York Times’ apparent strategy of playing “gotcha” with agency documents on the science of climate change is sure to set off an (another) extended series of debates about the science of climate change and who believes or admits what. If so, then score another point for those who desire inaction on climate change because endless debate over the science is about as close a proxy to inaction as you can find. In the end, those pressing the Bush Administration to admit the science of climate change may very well achieve this goal, but they will likely find it to be an empty victory as the Bush Administration can very easily admit the science and then justify its actions on a range of legitimate, non-scientific factors.