I have my own theories on why 'science' is suddenly the bad guy based on my own impressive little personal resume. I'm not really interested in going into THAT at the moment.
I will say this, the throw away line you posted earlier in this thread is not worthy of grand debate or consideration. It's akin to me traipsing into the 'don't ask don't tell' thread and saying 'well, that's nice, but after Abu Ghraib how can we trust the opinions of anyone in the military anyway.'
It's eye-roll material.
that's one thing.......
but the real theme is politicization of science. are you asserting that isn't happening?
btw...it's not that science is the bad guy...it's that scientists are letting themselves be used by not necessarily good people. all sorts of unsupported speculative claims have been laid at the feet of global warming theorists. we saw the same manipulation with the BP spill in terms of predictions about wildlife/sealife deaths. from a hockey stick calculated from a biased set of tree ring samples to heat measuring devices located near tarmac and sometimes painted black....we know the data wasn't always mosh skosh. as noted, I have friends who have passed stories about questionable data mining at EPA. what is a citizen to htink when one scientist employs apocalyptic terms to convey the horrors of anthropogenic engendered global warming and a nobel prize winner disputes that with theories about salinity of the Gulf stream? or when other scientists point to a burst in sun spot activty? or others note that temperatures haven't been rising as much as stated? the laymen is left to think "where does science lay off and political manipulation begin?" is there really an arbiter these days...as originally posted.....formally known as peer review?
I will defer to your expertise in the physical sciences..but I have a lot of experience with econometrics and the soft version of scientific process in the computer science field. the standards can vary widely for "proof" as can the jury of peers. the claim is being made that...like much else in our society these days.....preferred outcomes (i.e., ideology) trump disciplined process. I think it does...I don't know to what degree. it might be the case that it is comparatively small but receives an unbalanced amount of attention. in an age of Journolist and East Anglia...along with Wikileaks....all these activities lead one not to trust what were formally accepted as authoritative bodies and persons. the assault, Henry, is on all our core institutions...not just science. it comes from the Left and the right.
am I as a taxpayer skeptical when the results are being used to support fundamentally alterring laws like cap & trade? you bethcha.
and..oh btw.....I never stated you should trust the opinions of anyone in the military. clearly the senior leadership has taken some hits over the last many years.....

.... heck ... I know I parse very carefully what is stated by these cats these days. when in uniform....more than once what I have heard stated before the open mike was different from what I heard behind closed doors. but I digress.