Frankly, Pielke's shift to cnsideration of the war metaphor felt to me like an evasion. It sounded as if he'd lost on the facts, so had to shift to a side issue of language. So I admire Mooney here for seeing better than I a real concern and responding to it.

For me, the metaphor seemed not unreasonable, given real attacks on science and the reality of science itself as a coherent target. It'd be hard to say something similar in defense of our fabled war on terror. That other "war" also makes the metaphor more pertinent to a discussion of Republican strategies and values. But if I'm wrong, I'm sure Mooney's editor will happily consider the advice come next book. However, sure, whether to confront lying is a serious issue.

This whole site has often argued that not articulating a reply to Republican policies and distortions is bad politics, and I have to agree. Not speaking toward the alliance between corporate interests and fundamentalists also risks letting the coalition keep from collapsing.

But even aside from that, it gets at the nature and even duty of science. Science is about a search for truth and about the nature of the physical world. It's also an endeavor including individual scientific careers that depend on others for the funds to continue. If any of that is under assault, I can't imagine a scientist not demanding to speak up. A scientist is a human being with a political side, too, and I'd be surprised if many are not outraged by denials of the reality of human-induced climate change, which will have consequences. Pielke himself is effectively acting on a similar imperative when he and Sarewitz join the vocal minority who don't believe this. Can he be serious in arguing that own speaking up will make matters worse?

Frankly, Roger Pielke's posts were very disapointing. They were almost entirely devoid of substance and his objections were either not explained well (or even at all) or were logically wrong - as in the needle exchange example. In many cases his objections were not much more than assertions.

I put this down to several factors - he is fairly inexperienced; he has no real background in actual science; he seems to have a somewhat inflated opinion of himself (as in descending from the ivory tower and in his repeated references to "scholarly work" and how "complex" the issues are without ever addressing them); and finally, his knowledge of the facts is probably overly influenced by his father who is a well known climatologist.

So overall I am very disappointed with how this has turned out. I'd like to have seen some more spirited and detailed discussion of the issues raised in Mooney's book.

I have read Chris' book and liked it. However, it was written for a general audience and it would be interesting to dig deeper into some of these issues (not to try to discredit the book, but simply to explore further). I was hopeful that we would see at least some of that. We didn't. Maybe someone should invite Pielke's dad here to talk climatology.

"Republicans are not what they say they are.  Republicans are what they do." 

Excellent point, Notrol.  The Republican leadership does not approach debate as anything other than a place to fill the void with propaganda.  Inconsistency is a weapon they are fond of, for example.  I think contempt is a valuable and viable counter-weapon.

Contempt is not pretty.  But it is appropriate sometimes.  And there is no other response to a movement that builds museums with humans and dinosaurs cohabitating. 

If some claim that they want to practice diplomacy (mixed in with a stew of apologias) then let them strut their stuff.  No one is stopping them.  But they remind me of those who, back when I was active in the antiapartheid/national liberation support movement of the late 70s and 80s, of those who insisted on a negotiational rather than confrontational approach to the apartheid regime.  Such an approach is usually, and is transparently in the case of the critics here, a cloak for an apologia.

I would underscore Mooney's countercriticisms against his critics by noting that manipulating the use of language (metaphors like "war" on science), or the distortion of one's arguments (as courts often to with the arguments of a party whose case they are dismissing in order to make their decision seem more reasonable -- legal realism as if reality mattered) are standard operating procedures of sophistry; it is truly amazing that people can try to get away with this even in fairly discerning venues.
But they are the staple of 'ad-full-of-wolves-a-classic'-per-Dick-Morris the mainstream of US politics, today as in the past.  It is fitting that a war against science would be defended by those laying seige to reason & logic.

I have repeatedly raised an argument, however, that has not been answered:  there is not merely a war against science, but a broader war to control information so that only news-you-can-use to further a prearranged agenda is acceptable.   This is the age-old battle of the state against free expression and inquiry in all spheres.  It is the issue of seditious libel -- libel against the state where the greater the truth the greater the libel -- and the issue of suppressing dissent, of propaganda media rather than honest journalism (as reviewed by Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent) and the great battle of discourse in the realm of politics generally.   Is not the "Republican war on science" having reached an extreme level part and parcel of their categorical rejection of a genuinely free marketplace of ideas, a genuinely open arena where the chips of scientific discourse can 'fall where they may'?  Is this simply not part and parcel of the essence of the tyranny that worsens in America all the time?

    And that tyranny exists in a symbiotic relationship with imperialism.  I fear that there will be a focus on "science" as somehow defending its integrity has a purer cachet than just defending "whistleblowers" or "dissenters", especially from veiled repression.  But to my way of thinking, these things are part of a whole, a solid continuum, a gestalt, and necessarily must be treated as such.  It is good to focus in on aspects of the larger problem, of which the Republican War on Science is one, but it is simultaneously crucial to present this problem, in the interests of accurate social criticism (I hesitate to use the phrase "social science" speaking as someone with an MA in Sociology).  The War on Science not only does not exist in a vacuum, it is a piece of a larger phenomenon and not really a separate phenomenon at all.

The Protestant v. Catholic 10 Commandments is a bit of oversimplification.

Lutherans organize the 10 commandments in the same way that the Roman Catholic Church does.  I say this to remind people that Martin Luther fought more with Protestants than the Catholics as the former attempted to jettison Catholic doctrine that Luther thought was valid (infant baptism, real presence communion, etc.).

 With all these differences in mind, even among "Protestants",
I don't want my government picking and choosing whom to support in this disagreement, I want them to stay out of it.  I don't want Baptists picking my 10 Commandments, or the Christian Scientists and Mormons deciding what constitutes "Scripture".