One of the bizarre inversions of sensible discussion of scientific issues has been in the news recently; the claim that the current US government has politicized science "more than any previous government". As noted in dnE ehT ... toN this has long been a favorite sport the world over so it seems worth questioning the political objectives of current critics. A good example of this sort of political speech pretending to be valid scientific criticism can be found in Chris Mooney's recent post Amen, Brother.

George W. Bush has played politics with science like no other president before or since--and these abuses, even if not electorally crucial, could have devastating long term consequences.

The absurdity of this comment given the history of politicized science in the US as well as the rest of the world is laughable if we think of it as scientific criticism but makes sense seen as political and commercial speech. Mooney confesses this.

I might as well add, for those who haven't guessed it already, that this egregious politicization of science will be the subject of my first book, which I'm currently hard at work writing. Wish me luck.

Mooney carries on in the political tradition of the environmental "movement", using popular media to advance theses not supported by science. Mooney isn't unique or unusual in this, many are far worse, he's just a well known example for blog readers. His primary method is to claim "consensus" for his political views and attack opponents credentials while evading their arguments. It is, in other words, pure politics untainted by science. He selects his data points to support his politics and dismisses all else. There is no debate of evidence, no recognition that over time minority views always prove to be superior as knowledge progresses. Not every minority view is better, but majority views are always wrong in the end. The method of science is to consider new ideas and discoveries when they refute current opinion to see if they have merit. The fact that they are minority views is irrelevant as are the credentials of those proposing new ideas. Science doesn't care about such things.

Another method used by political science writers such as Mooney is to conflate criticism of political policies with criticism of scientific evidence. They are not the same and the public is poorly served by such conflation. A classic example of this from current events is the screeching objection to Bjorn Lomborg's debunking of the Kyoto Protocol. The reaction to Lomborg was near religious hysteria and attempts to destroy Lomborg for his heresies. But it is important to note that Lomborg's criticism wasn't of the scientific evidence for climate change, it was of political spin and bad policies based on that evidence.

The evidence of climate change is tenuous but real, incomplete and sometimes contradictory. We have some evidence of symptoms and no evidence of causal relationships. We do have some theories which help point to useful experiments and possible sources of related data. As a scientific activity climate change study is a booming, well funded and popular field. It is an intrinsically interesting field with portentous implications for humanity. Cool.

Climate change, like many other issues that rise to political importance, is inherently multi-disciplinary. Useful contributions are not restricted to those who call themselves climatologists - every discipline from statistics to astro-physics makes contributions - and some of the most useful inputs come from those not previously deeply involved. Attempting to discredit someone based on their credentials is not only disingenuous, it is a silly political argument devoid of relevant insight. What matters are ideas not credentials. It often seems to be the socially unsophisticated and interested little boy that notices that the emperor is naked and blurts out his career limiting observation.

Good and useful science and science commentary is demonstrated by MacArthur fellow and UC Berkeley professor Richard Muller in a recent Technology Review article which discusses the infamous "hockey stick".

It was unfortunate that many scientists endorsed the hockey stick before it could be subjected to the tedious review of time. Ironically, it appears that these scientists skipped the vetting precisely because the results were so important...

Some people think that science is served by open debate between left-handed and right-handed advocates, just as in politics. But the history of science shows it is best done by people who have two hands each. Present results with caution, and insist on equivocating. Leave it to the president and his advisors to make decisions based on uncertain conclusions. Don’t exaggerate the results. Use both hands. We cannot afford to lower our standards merely because the problem is so urgent.

Muller is right of course but I bet he doesn't sell many books or get invited to a lot of gala events. Perhaps it would be possible for some writer to rise above the mire of biased pseudo-science we see so much of in the popular press and find a way to present scientific issues in a valid way that is also compelling and entertaining. Until then the best we can do is to hope for a balance of some sort where a variety of political viewpoints masquerading as science are published and that journalists and reviewers assemble composite views from those biased presentations.

UPDATE: 01/14/2004

See Notes & Comment for a related perspective.