http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2ODc5NTYxJnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Mg==

“Heavy, intense nor’easter fooled the forecasters
Monday, February 13, 2006

“It was the storm that wouldn’t let up…. The storm was unusual because it developed an eye, like a hurricane; it brought thunder and lightning and it was a snow-only event. …”

I found that looking for something I heard on the radio, saying the recent record snowstorm happened because of the “unusually warm Atlantic Ocean”

If there’s good info being withheld from the public, I suppose we’ll see signs of it showing up in the stock market and real estate and insurance industry changes. Maybe someone’s looking there, as the SEC often does when a stock price changes dramatically before information is made public.

See http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/02/10/a-misinformed-public/

He was appointed in 2001 as the regional EPA head.
Here’s how he’s handling the wetlands and public health laws — which he’s testified he disagrees with:

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=527
http://web.naplesnews.com/03/10/naples/e7399a.htm

This is the big circle I’m talking about — when you start trying to define the perimeter of ethical behavior for scientists and those administering scientific agencies, this is the environment in which you’re making judgments.

Roy Spencer can speak for himself:

“I have some familiarity with these restrictions on government employees, as they were a major reason I resigned from NASA over four years ago. But back then, the shoe was on the other foot. NASA knew I was not supportive of the popular gloom-and-doom theory of global warming, and before any congressional testimony of mine on the subject, I was “reminded” that I could speak on the science, but not on policy matters.”

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=013106I

For government employees resignation is always an option when they disagree with policies that they have expertise in. Again, I am not advocating that Hansen resign (please do read my original post) but only acknowledging the reality that it should be an option on the table if he cannot reconcile his day job with his political predilections. Ultimately this is a decsion that only he can make.

Thanks for your comments.

Thanks for your comments. You don;t seem to be misisng anything. There does indeed seem to be a trend of more and more political battles being waged through science. For instance, this trend was observed by Chuck Herrick and Dale Jamieson before Bush took office in this paper:

http://www.puaf.umd.edu/IPPP/reports/Spring-Summer%20Vol21%202001/221056.pdf

I attribute the trend to at least four factors:

1) More contested political issues today have a S&T component than in the past.

2) We have far more science available than ever before, fueling what Sarewitz calls the “excess of objectivity” making it easier to wage political battles through science

3) A post-Cold War trend of demands for science to be “relevant” motivating many scientists to seek to be relevant through political advocacy

4) More scientists chasing relatively fewer dollars (even as budget have increased) creating incentives to connect science with ongoing political debates as a mechanism of promotion of their calims to research funding.

There are surely additional conditional factors at play as well.

In 2004 I taught a workshop-style course in which we sought to put some analytical rigor on this issue. What we came up with can certainly be debated, but it does add a bit of perspective. See it here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1429-ENVS%204800%20Report.pdf

And no, unfortunately, your insights do not appear to be obvious to most readers! Thanks for the comments.

We could probably toss in Pat Michaels who serves as State Climatologist under Mark Warner and now Tim Kaine.

Not to deviate too far from the subject, but this has been on my mind since your discussions on Mooney’s book.

This may seem obvious to some readers, but I am continually perplexed by claims of the abuse of science. Over the past decade, these claims appear to be increasing in frequency, and I do not understand why. From my perspective, most claims of abuse seem hollow.

With the exception of out right fraud or intentionally mischaracterizing scientific results, exactly what constitutes abuse?

From my observation, most claims of abuse are misguided, and typically result from:

1) An individual’s expectation of how science should interface with policy differing from how science actually interfaces in practice. Reliance on the linear model of science and PUS come to mind.

2) An individual’s perspective being inflexible to the possibility of multiple legitimate interpretations of the same set of facts. Typically, this leads to unjustified claims of intentionally mischaracterizing science.

What am I missing?

Best,
Dave

Maybe go back and read some of my posts again as you have mischaracterized my views. The Bush administration may indeed be the worst abuser of science. Lets posit that as a fact. OK, with that out of the way, now what?