Then the memo is absolutely worthless doublespeak, right? Otherwise, please tell me how you have a “robust (god, I hate that word) scientific discussion and debate.” You are not making much sense to this simple scientist.

“ALL I’m trying to say is that there should be clear evidence that the Agency has looked at all “sides” of the issue, if they are going to claim that they have looked at the “science.”

Putting aside the question about the presence of “sides” on scientific questions (with or without policy implications), there is nothing in the scientific integrity memo that promises that all “sides” will be considered. The only promise is for robust scientific discussion and debate. There is no guarantee that viewpoints in opposition to those expressed by agency scientists will be sought out, especially if the differences within the agency are on matters of degree rather than what the conclusions are.

Keep in mind what these measures are in response to – the claims by the Union of Concerned Scientists and other groups that scientists in federal agencies were misrepresented, muzzled, or otherwise restricted from discussing their research. This document, and the one the OSTP will inform, are not making claims that all scientific viewpoints will be considered in the ultimate policy judgment. Unless the finding violated the law (and I’m sure there will be a suit to address that question), or the laws mandated an outcome based on the results of scientific assessments, then there is nothing wrong with the professional judgment of an agency making policy choices based on things besides “the science”.

The doublespeak you believe is happening is not unique to any particular party or ideology. Frequent readers of this blog will have seen this before, but the notion that political viewpoints will be absent from policy decisions related to science harkens to some mystical uber-objectivity that never existed.

“This report is a clearly biased presentation of the science which continues to use the same reports (IPCC and CCSP) to promote a particular political viewpoint on climate (and energy) policy).”

If this is true, it is NOT consistent with Jackson’s statements, which are just more Democratic Doublespeak.

“You seem to believe that a robust scientific debate would automatically lead to your preferred policy option. That’s a bit presumptuous, and hints at some stealth advocacy on your part.”

“You also assume that a robust scientific debate would dictate any particular policy option. There are no guarantees of that, even with the new memo.”

NO, you are not understanding me at all. I never said this and don’t believe it. ALL I’m trying to say is that there should be clear evidence that the Agency has looked at all “sides” of the issue, if they are going to claim that they have looked at the “science.” In the case of the “finding,” there is no such evidence. In fact, it is very obvious to me that the conclusion preceeded all the “scientific pursuit.” The process appears identical to that of IPPC’s, where the SPM was produced BEFORE the main AR4 document. EPA did not go back to the science to produce their finding; they relied on other “findings,” (like AR4) which are not scientific documents, IMHO. If you think that is “science,” then you and I truly are on different wavelengthts.

It’s not obvious that the finding is egregious to the point of sick humor. The EPA wants to control CO2 emissions, and thinks this particular way of doing so is within their authority.

You also assume that a robust scientific debate would dictate any particular policy option. There are no guarantees of that, even with the new memo.

““I am committed to fostering a culture of robust scientific debate and discussion within the Agency, recognizing that in the end senior scientists must take responsibility for resolving differences of opinions using established science policies and their best professional judgment. ”

IMHO, there is no evidence of any “robust scientific debate” during the EPA deliberations on whether CO2 is a pollutant that causes endangerment. This is obvious because the final product is egregious to the point of sick humor. It lacks ANY considertation of the positive effects of CO2. It lacks any explanation for the lack of temperature rise over the past 12 years. ETC. It reveals NO scientific debate. It is a piece of political CRAP.

If there is dispute over whether something should be disclosed, there are measures like FOiA to address those concerns. Not everything that is recorded is made public.

The memo is about how scientific discussions should be handled within a larger context of making a policy decision. It does not address many of the non-scientific factors that inform regulatory decisions. It does not give specific instruction on how disagreements over scientific practices or findings should be resolved. It does not say that science trumps other issues in regulatory decisions.

“Internal agency discussions may not necessarily be a matter of public record, so there may not be a record of it.

The scientific debate and discussion can take place, be free and honest, and still overruled by other considerations.”

How absolutely LAME! The regulated community lives by the rule that if it is not recorded, it never happened. The regulators should be held to their own standard, at least.