Gristmill on science in policy debates
Andrew Dessler, in his Gristmill blog, reports on yesterday's (17 January) Capitol Hill briefing on science and politics. From Mr Dessler's report:
"First, I argued that the scientific assessment process is the best way to determine what the scientific community thinks about a particular scientific issue.
The key to my argument is that credible scientific advice emerges from a credible process. Scientific results gain credibility by passing peer review, and then being re-tested and multiply verified by the scientific community. In that way, hypotheses are converted into "facts." Scientific advice to policymakers gains credibility by relying on peer-reviewed analyses and then going through multiple levels of peer-review -- as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports do.
As a result, the IPCC reports are gold-standard statements of what the scientific community knows about the climate and how confidently we know it.
The worst way to determine what the science tells us, as evidenced by Inhofe's last stand, is a Congressional hearing. There is no guarantee that what the "scientists" at those hearings say is true. There's no peer review of any statement, no fact checking -- it's a free-for-all. If you don't believe me, take a look at some of the statements trotted out by David Deming and Bob Carter. They are just flat-out wrong."
