The Political Climate: an ongoing commentary on the NH Primary and Climate Change

It’s tricky mixing politics with science and science with politics.  We illustrated this matter in TPC yesterday when reporting on speculation that the Bush Administration withheld information on climate change.  Scientists have reason to be wary about losing credibility based on perceived partisanship,  but we feel that’s an issue much different than being involved in the political process (e.g. civic debate.)   According to this report in the New York Times, a group of scientists have realized that remaining detached from politics isn’t helping their cause.  Instead they hope by getting political they can become more non-partisan.

A group of well known scientists have formed an organization to elect politicians who “respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy.”  They cited climate change as one of such issues. The group, Scientists and Engineers for America, have decided to enter the debate because “the nation’s leaders systematically ignore scientific evidence and analysis.”  The goal is to elect an administration where ”researchers who receive federal funds [are] free to discuss their work publicly, and that appointments to federal scientific advisory committees should  be based on scientific qualifications, not political beliefs.”

Maybe accomplishing such a goal would fulfill the hopes of this editorial in todays Washington Post.  The editorial states that “global warming represents a policy crisis responsible politicians can no longer ignore–one as potentially existential as the threat of global terrorism.”  A solution “require[s] an end to denial”– a statement that Scientists and Engineers for America would undoubtedly agree with.