“And if Inhofe or any member of Congress has reason to doubt this, inquiries are in order.”

Of course, “doubt” sometimes arises when you are predisposed to believe that your adversaries are acting in bad faith (“give those scientists an inch and they’ll take a kilometer!”) and you go digging for post-facto evidence …

“And given the power they wield on so many policy disputes, from global warming to the Endangered Species Act, it’s legitimate to ask if they have agendas.”

Of course, quantifying how much power scientists actually have in these kinds of debates is an ongoing topic of study. Probably it’s more than some people think but it’s probably less than most people think.

I wonder whether it’s possible to tease apart the relative influences of “scientists acting as honest brokers” and “scientists acting as advocates” in the outcome of a given policy dispute.

-Chris

Having lived in Colorado Springs for a couple years… this reminds me why I left.

“A View From Colorado Springs,” indeed.

This little bit (from the editorial) is a nice example of how one can make a somewhat valid point but do so in such an inflamatory way as to, as Roger puts it, lead “people to align according to their political predispositions.:”

“Some are shocked, shocked by the suggestion that science can be corrupted or co-opted — that researchers at NCAR and UCAR are doing anything other than objective research. How dare anyone question the integrity of “science,” they huff. But that’s a willfully naive view, given the way science, policy, advocacy and big money intermingle in this society.”

“Come an’ git yer red meat, hea!”

-Mitch