Y'know, discussion here, amplified in/during the Steyn trial (if it ever happens), may well go a long way towards firming up what we expect of <i>"scientific policy advice"</i>. When governments rely on such advice for decisions that impact lots of people, people have a right to expect <b>something</b> in the way of integrity in behavior, with legal recourse if it's not forthcoming. Question is: what?
We know what the Mann crowd wants: if it supports their agenda, anything goes, if it doesn't, it's open to attack on every little nit-<strike>picking</strike>puking detail they can find. Any sort of attack. In whatever venue they can shop for.
From <a href="http://www.steynonline.com/6333/michael-e-mann-liar-cheat-falsifier-and-fraud" rel="nofollow">Steyn</a><blockquote>But, if you're a younger scientist, you know that, if you cross Mann and the other climate mullahs, there goes tenure, there goes funding, there goes your career: you'll be cut off like Briffa's tree rings. I've been stunned to learn of the very real fear of retribution that pervades the climate world. That's why I'm playing this one differently from the Maclean's case: Dr Mann will be on the witness stand under oath, and the lies that went unchallenged in the Big Climate echo chamber will not prove so easy to get away with. I didn't seek this battle with this disreputable man. But, when it's over, I hope that those who work in this field will once again be free to go where the science leads.</blockquote>What are the implications for <i>"scientific policy advice"</i>, either way?