For those unfamiliar with the geography of Colorado, Colorado Springs is not far from Boulder, perhaps two hours drive on a good day. But in some respects it seems pretty distant. A link to an editorial in the Colorado Springs Gazette appeared in my inbox (thanks!) on Senator James Inhofe’s request for information on UCAR/NCAR, which is here in Boulder. Here is how it begins:

[Disclaimer: I worked for UCAR/NCAR 1993-2001 and am hardly an unbiased person in this matter. You've been warned. Comments after the excerpt below.]

One senator’s inquiry into the inner workings of Boulder’s National Center for Atmospheric Research, and its parent organization, the University Center for Atmospheric Research, is being construed by some as an act of political intimidation. The senator, James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is a global warming skeptic. NCAR and UCAR, which receive federal support through the National Science Foundation, are viewed as leading proponents of global warming theory. That’s led some to allege that Inhofe is trying to pressure NCAR and UCAR into tailoring their research to take a more skeptical view, and of polluting the purity of science with politics.

But we’re not sure Inhofe’s request is out of line. NCAR’s contract with the NSF hasn’t been put up for competitive bid in years — which strikes us as a legitimate subject of inquiry. What else Inhofe might be looking for is unknown. But if he’s searching for evidence that the organizations are engaged in “advocacy science,” rather than conducting unbiased research, that’s a legitimate inquiry as well, since federal funds are involved.

Taxpayers have an interest in knowing they are supporting sound, even-handed, agenda-free science, on climate change or any other issue. And if Inhofe or any member of Congress has reason to doubt this, inquiries are in order.

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.

Scientists are as susceptible to being seduced by political agendas, personal biases and self-interest as any other human beings, in our view. 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.

It’s obvious that scientists have increasingly been crossing the line into advocacy. We find it laughable, for instance, when the Union of Concerned Scientists — which for years has been pushing a radical, left-wing political agenda — accuses the Bush administration of “politicizing” science.

Read the whole thing. Now some reactions.

My thoughts on this are very much along the lines of my reaction to Representative Joe Barton’s request for information related to the so-called “Hockey Stick.” Here is what I said about that:

From the perspective of climate science or policy Rep. Barton’s inquiry is simply inane. There will be little insight gained on climate or how we might improve policies on climate change through his “investigation.” As Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has written in response to Rep. Barton, “These letters do not appear to be a serious attempt to understand the science of global warming. Some might interpret them as a transparent effort to bully and harrass climate change experts who have reached conclusions with which you disagree…. If the Committee indeed has a genuine interest in the science of global warming, you should withdraw these letters and instead schedule a long-overdue Committee hearing on climate change.”

Of course, it is doubtful that Rep. Barton’s Committee (on Energy and Commerce, I remind you) actually has any real interest in the science of climate change, except as a tool of tactical advantage in the continuing political battle over global warming. Rep. Barton and others opposed to action on climate change will continue to gnaw at the hockey stick like a dog on a bone so long as they perceive that it confers some political benefits.

1. I do think that it is perfectly fair to question the long-term management of NCAR by UCAR. Some competition might be valuable.

2. We have often discussed the consequences of scientists politicizing science. Like it or not, the reaction of the Gazette will not be unique. Unfortunately, the likely instinctive response of most people — on all sides of this issue — will be to exacerbate the politicization.

3. Senator Inhofe is going about this all wrong in my view. If he really wants to investigate UCAR/NCAR, then he should tap some of his colleagues on Senate Commerce and do it via hearings, out in the open, and through established channels of legislative oversight authority. His fishing expedition smacks of political opportunism, and will delegitimize any merit that his efforts might have.

4. For many scientists, it is crucial to understand where the editorial writers for the Colorado Springs Gazette are coming from. Simply opposing, criticizing, or dismissing their concerns will not be a good strategy, if for no reason than their views are likely to be widely shared by a significant part of the population, and both the future of support for your science, and support for the use of your science. depends upon maintaining some degree of legitimacy across the populace. Politicze the scientific enterprise at your own, and society’s, peril.

5. In the blogosphere both the Inhofe request and the Gazette editorial serve in many situations as perfect wedge devices which allow people to align according to their political predispositions. This is well and good, but the scientific blogo-subset has to deicde if this is the best way to engage this issue. In my view, it may make things worse.