By talking about how certain questions included non-scientific issues and how other science issues were excluded, it was easy for me to think that you were complaining that it was not a strictly science debate, and there was some false advertising. Goldston agrees with this point, and without separating yourself from his interest in keeping the bright line (or at least keeping the executive out of ’snap judgments’ on this topic), I may not be the only reader to conflate your perspective with his. Looking at Goldston’s comments at Revkin’s blog, he’s particularly concerned about the blurring of this bright line, that it will backfire on scientists, causing more scrutiny and ‘interference.’ I’m disappointed in his attitude that certain aspects of scientific activity are better off kept separated from their political context. I don’t think that’s possible, and perhaps this debate might open the minds of others to that idea. Personally, I think linking science to the policy issues that it can contribute to is a realistic way to react to increasing budgetary pressure on federal support.

Let me suggest that the scope of every debate is arbitrarily decided, and that this debate does not appear to be particularly different in this regard. These things are messy, and they aren’t so much about the issues discussed (if they are in fact discussed) as how things are discussed (format, rules and moderator matter way more than what is covered). I’m not keen on the current setup (about political debates in general), but I think arguing about having a neatly defined debate on a particular set of strictly scientific issues sidesteps the role and ascribed value of debates to begin with. Talking about how things ought to be is worthwhile, but talking about what is will attract the attention of the organizers and candidates.

It is worth noting that I see the label of “ScienceDebate” as a shorthand for science policy and the value choices that inform it, much like a national security debate or foreign affairs debate is about policy and value choices in each of those areas. I don’t think everyone gets this (and the organizers haven’t been clear on this point – not that it’s in their best interests to be).

Sorry Ryan, thought Roger Pielke Jr. post this it should have said Ryan.

David:
Thanks for your comment. I hope my post did not suggest that I think there is an easily definable line between science and politics, let alone that we should strive to preserve it! It is the impossibility of separating science and politics that I think makes this debate so problematic – it becomes very difficult – perhaps arbitrary – to define the scope.

Roger I think it is a bad idea for politicians to debate climate. They usually have no understanding to the basic forces involved. There should be a highly visible debate between scientist from both views. This being said ones political view can always cloud their science. Remember that 100 scientist signed a letter stating Einstein was wrong. Do you know how he answered that letter? You should read this thread from climate audit, Steve McIntyre was invited to Georgia Tech by JEG (Julien Emile-Geay) and Judith Curry. You should see their comments in this thread. It is condescending of the reads and contributors of that post. Typical “tribal” attitude.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2697#comments

I don’t think the organizers will focus on your concerns, because they aren’t particularly relevant to making a debate happen. They need to sell this idea more broadly to the greater public (which they haven’t) and perhaps more narrowly for buy-in from the scientific community (which strikes me as preaching to the choir). The very notion of having a “Science Debate” blurs the bright line between science and politics both you and Goldston appear to want to preserve – one that has typically been more porous than it appears. Trying to make this debate more ’scientific’ strikes me as idealistic as the notion that these issues can attract and hold the interests of the public and the candidates enough to hold a debate.