Science needs to be non-partisan to lose those ideological blinkers. That means we need to listen to other peoples point of view and deal with the actual facts regardless of whether they turn out to be politically incorrect or industry-unfriendly. And often an objective look at the facts show our theories, whether economic or scientific, to be far too simplistic. We always like to reduce everything to a straight line 2 variable graph but nature is a lot more complex than that.

Most environmentalists are genuinely concerned that industry are poisoning our environment and they naturally want to stop that. And on most occasions they are shown to be correct while sometimes they are just too conservative and fearful. But too many of the right just see an anti-industry bias when it’s really only an anti-pollution bias based on the belief that nature probably knows best.

Logic obviously isn’t one of your strong suits. I doubt many of the folks who read this blog are going to be impressed with your pathetic effort to construct a straw man –

“The Bush administration censored Hansen, and political appointees edited his work based on political considerations. I’m not surprised that you support censoring scientists whose opinions you don’t agree with.”

Surely you can’t possibly think that type of argumentation is effective.

Grow up.

Feinstein is a very centrist Democrat on most issues, and the more lefty Dems get upset with her a lot.

The Bush administration censored Hansen, and political appointees edited his work based on political considerations. I’m not surprised that you support censoring scientists whose opinions you don’t agree with.

Roger – the polar bears are an interesting case. We don’t know now if they will adapt to live on land once the sea ice gets to far away. Even if they don’t, they probably won’t go extinct for decades, though there is some research showing physical impacts now. Otoh, they are the kind of “charismatic megafauna” that got the Endangered Species Act passed, unlike the many small animals and plants it often gets applied to today. Also, protecting polar bears with the Act doesn’t impinge on private property issues, given where they live, like protecting other species. I personally think that the focus that some environmental organizations have on polar bears undermines climate change action since it simply is too abstract an issue for most people. Saving eagles and bears didn’t require changing most people’s lifestyles.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090508/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_polar_bear_climate_7

Dean: Gawd, please tell us what Bush did to Hansen! He should have had him fired, numerous times, for violating Federal policies. Sheesh!

In fact, science usually plays second to politics when personal interests are involved. That isn’t unique to Republicans, as you show. Partisanship – a true scourge on our government – may well prevent Democrats from pointing it out when Democratic politicians ignore the science, but Sen. Feinstein’s actions are a far cry from what the Bush administration did to Hansen and climate science in general.

“there never has been a “war on science,” just politics as usual, sometimes played more hardball than others, especially by the previous Administration.”

It’s ridiculous to try to say that the GOP played more hardball than Democrats. As a Democratic voter, you need to take that log out of your eye before pointing at the speck in the GOP’s. It was the Left which forced the CDC to abandon science and scare the hell out of people about AIDS. It was the Left which forced the FDA to abandon science and declare 2d hand smoke a threat. It’s the Left which constantly promotes false studies and propaganda as fact for political gain.

Earlier this week loyal Obama propagandist, Chris Matthews, accused the GOP of being anti-science and against the scientific method because of doubts over the global warming religion. Yet, climate scientists preaching AGW are the ones who have abandoned the scientific method. They are the ones who refuse transparency and replication. They are the ones who obstruct and obfuscate out of fear that others “would only try to find something wrong with their work”.

Roger, you’ve noted that a number of government groups have failed to include relevant scientific studies in their one-sided assessments. They only cite work which supports their politics. Which side of the political fence were these scientists playing on? Uh huh. They’re AGW proponents swinging from the left. Talk about hardball.