Summing up a Green position on SSPS

> The suggestion that too much environmentalism is grounded in bad
>
>science may have merit. Opposing environmentalism on the basis of bad
>science is equally bad. The solution to bad science (and what Crichton
>engages in, which is bad argumentation) is good science and good
>argumentation. Bad logic and bad rhetoric are easy. Really thinking
>through the possibilities, and admitting when your preferred outcome
>isn't well supported is difficult. It requires both integrity and
>courage. Crichton makes some good points, but he also plays rhetorical
>games which undermine his main point.
>
Yup. Now how do we get to that point? What are the ground rules for
discussion? Citing peer-reviewed scientific papers (which Crichton does
in a couple of places) is one important piece of it. References to
actual experience and numbers from reputable sources like the US Energy
Information Administration (and EPA) are another component - but
Crichton apparently doesn't trust the EPA any more... what are the
objective criteria that allow us to trust an information source? Many
conservatives accuse environmental scientists of pushing their own
agenda because they depend on government funding, and there's probably
some of that, so that science itself suffers - but scientists under the
current administration have to be politically careful to retain their
funding too... To me there don't seem to be many articulate review
papers on the energy/environment issues we've been discussing, and the
various books that keep coming out promoting one side or another seem to
be generally atrocious. But maybe I'm just not familiar enough with the
literature - probably time to look through some of those National
Academy Press books tango just mentioned.