The National Academy of Sciences is launching a ten-month study on how policymakers can incorporate global warming considerations into policy administration. Greenwire (subscription required) is reporting that NAS will look at the impact of climate change on various policy fields, including fisheries management and regional water use. While we applaud the effort, we can’t help but be a little cynical about what the federal government will do with this report when it is released next January. Ignore it? Spin it? Decry it as having been “put out by the bureaucracy”?

The Internetwork for Sustainability reports from New Zealand that the political/scientific gap may be widening on climate change. While United States politicians from both parties and other leaders continue to bury their heads in the sand, the worlds’ scientists are increasingly alarmed by the surprising pace and impacts of global warming. For example, scientists are seeing sea level rising much faster than expected. In the face of this new evidence, some scientists are deliberately restraining their public statements so that they don’t sound as alarmist as their findings suggest they should be. Link

In other news, columnist Jay Howard recently defended the Bush Administration’s two-faced approach to science (calling for funding for science education with one side of the mouth while hushing scientific analysis with the other). In his column Howard argued that “the left” abuses science worse than the Bush administration, and thus they should keep their opinions to themselves. In illustrating that point, he took a few swipes at the Union of Concerned Scientists. UCS responded in a follow-up column that punches holes in Howard’s argument (and its factual mistakes) the size of icebergs.

A study released last month finds that Americans have more hard-core climate change skeptics than some of their Western peers, but those skeptics are in a small minority. For the most part, researchers found that Americans aren’t that different than Swedes, Japanese, and British citizens when it comes to their attitudes on energy and global warming. “American Exceptionalism? Similarities and Differences in National Attitudes Toward Energy Policy and Global Warming.”

On February 19, the Council of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) recently adopted a resolution on Free and Open Exchange. In it, AAAS tackles the topics of censorship, intimidation, and restrictions, tying the resolution to statements made at NASA and NOAA. Read the resolution.

We all know what a FAQ is, but what is an FMA? Coby Beck has prepared something like it – a list of climate change skeptics’ Frequently Made Assertions called “How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic.” Beck tackles many of the most popular assertions, and provides readers with responses that are in plain English for the layperson, and with references for those skeptics who want a little more proof. Link.

Chris Mooney, bestselling author of The Republican War on Science, recently mused on scientists’ role in public debate in the pages of Seed magazine. In the article, “Learning to Speak ‘Science’,” he discusses the responsibility researchers have to remain engaged in the democratic process. And, in speaking with communications firms and noted linguists, he provides readers with tips and techniques to effectively engage the public and elected officials. One suggestion: climatologists may want to replace “the greenhouse effect” with “carbon dioxide blanket.”

You can read Mooney’s article here. Also, be sure to check out his blog The Intersection, an outgrowth of his research into attacks on science.

The United States hasn’t cornered the market on silencing scientists. Case in point, Russia, a country who knows a bit about suppressing inconvenient facts. Greenpeace is currently protesting a Russian agency’s attempt to silence its own environmental experts. At issue, an environmental impact assessment of a planned oil pipeline — the world’s biggest, and an apparent threat to Lake Baikal (a World Heritage Site). Of the 52 scientists who prepared the assessment, 43 have signed a statement calling the pipeline “a great potential danger to the lake.”

What would Washington do? “We are receiving phone calls asking to think twice before going public with the outcome of our work,” said one of the Russian scientists. “In the meantime, the Federal Service is using loopholes in the Russian legislation to block the negative conclusions.” Source

On February 18, Dictionary.com’s Word of the Day was “canard.”

canard \kuh-NAHRD\, noun:
1. An unfounded, false, or fabricated report or story.

In French canard means “duck” or “false news; hoax.” The latter sense of the word probably comes from the phrase vendre un canard à moitié, “to half-sell a duck” — which is to say, not to sell it at all, hence “to take in, to make a fool of.” Source

Unfortunately, from bottled water to global warming, the American public has been half-buying a lot of ducks lately.

Over President’s Day weekend, the New York Times reported two separate tales of how science continues to be slighted in the White House.

The New York Times reported on February 19 that a novel rebuking climate science earned Michael Crichton an hour-long private meeting with President Bush. Crichton’s 2004 State of Fear is a fictional thriller that centers on a homicidal environmentalist, and implies doubt in the science and the severity of global warming. The President became a fan of the book, and it was reported that the two “were in-near total agreement” in their meeting. The science fiction author has also testified on climate change before Congress. Link

That same day the Times reported from the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in St. Louis. The Union of Concerned Scientists convened a well-attended panel on scientific integrity. Former National Science Foundation head Rita R. Colwell, did not report ever having been pressured to change, squelch, or misrepresent her agency’s research. She did suggest, according to the Times, that “the free flow of scientific information” is the second greatest threat to the United States after terrorism. Link

The Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Initiative responds to and counters the assault on science and scientific integrity in the public policy arena, especially on issues related to water, climate change, and security.

This Integrity of Science Blog will be used to feature commentary and criticism, highlight news stories, and allow readers to provide their own experiences and insight into this disturbing trend.