Hanson was replying to an attack on his work, you are calling for others reply to attacks on your work. Your reply to the serial catowner is quite revealing. Pot, kettle, black.

Thanks for posting. Your comment that “The fact that this statement might not be scientifically true is of no relevance; the NYT is not a scientist” underscores one of Dan Sarewitz’s main points about the politicization of science – and that we see in the comments here – scientific truth matters a lot, when it is politically convenient, and when it is politically inconvenient, it doesn’t seem to matter nearly as much.

Officials in the Bush Administration should indeed be held to high intellectual standards, even if they are not scientists – but so too should everyone else, including me, you and the NYT.

And who would want to be, if being a “scientist” involved a paralyzing inability to accept any statement as “true”, regardless of the context.

Normally, when presented with this demand for absolute certainty, in a context where it probably cannot be attained, I assume the author has some other, unspoken, thought on their mind. If the article referenced had been the NYT reporting on Amazonian butterflies, I would remain in a greater uncertainty about what that unexpressed thought might be.

“I have received some comments asking whether or not I think that IPCC scientists should simply remain mute on issues of climate science or politics. The answer is “no””

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000344climate_science_and_.html

And more recently in response to a commenter: “You characterize me as stating “Scientists, to maintain their `honest broker’ status, should avoid commenting directly on policy issues.” No. This is completely opposite of what I have written. Please have another look.”

I’m not sure where you get the Bill gray reference, but you can find some comments of mine here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000536reader_request_comm.html

Thanks again, and thanks for keeping your comments constructive.

You are being selective in your angst again Roger. You might also not take William Gray as your touchstone. He is claiming that global temperatures will start to decrease in ten years or so, which when you think about it is the same thing that drives his comments about hurricanes. Fundamentally his extrapolation is based on a complete distain for climate modeling. To the extent that you credit the models with any skill, he is wrong. Gray at this point looks like an affirmation of the concept that new theories do not convince their opponents, but that the opponents eventually pass on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/30/AR2005093001583.html