An editorial in today’s Detroit Free Press has some interesting information related to the Bush Administration’s position on climate science.

“The Bush administration is taking a new tack on global warming, finally conceding that human activities contribute to it. But, unfortunately, it doesn’t look as if any of its underlying policies are going to take a similar leap forward. Glen Davies, principal deputy assistant secretary for European affairs at the Department of State, told editorial writers last week that “we accept that the science is clear” on human contributions to global warming — although not on how much of the problem human activity causes or how fast climate change is occurring. The administration’s focus clearly remains on alternative technologies, not mandated cutbacks, and Davies specifically cited hydrogen technology.”

This is interesting for several reasons. First, the fact that this information is being conveyed by a “principal deputy assistant secretary for European affairs” suggests that it is a trial balloon. And even though John Marburger has made similar comments in the recent past, as science advisor he is not is a policy position. Second, the Bush Administration is likely to take heat on this position from two camps. One is the hard-core contrarians who would like to persist in debate over climate science. They will likely make claims that the science is not yet settled. And the second are those opposed to Bush who also would like the debate to continue in the form of climate science. They will make claims about what the Bush Administatrion “really” believes on climate science. Both of these camps would be good examples of the “scientizers” that I characterized last week.

The Free Press editorial concludes with the following:

“The July G8 event would be an opportune time for the United States to do more than tweak its talking points on global warming. A bolder commitment — to research, to alternative energy and to the right mix of incentives — is in order.”

Nuclear energy, anyone?