Eliminate Junk Science from public policy debates

I'd just like to post on behalf of John Parks and say that the 3 keys to improving our global situation are sustainability, stewardship, and SOUND SCIENCE. Professor Parks defines sound science as anything that is not junk science.

on a more serious note, when you quote a statistic you take ownership of it. and the more i think about it i have agreed to and passed on some science that may have been motivated by a political agenda i.e. junk science, but i think that it is becoming harder and harder to convince and get the attention of readers/listeners. furthermore some issues are not receiving the attention they deserve. with that in mind...

Is it okay to bend the facts a little if, for example, they're global warming statistics or numbers on how much oil we use? especially what if that little manipulation will get people to pay attention and realize they need to change the way they consume?

You can come to pretty much any conclusion you want,and back it up with "facts" that sound convincing- this is why it is especially important to have diverse and unbiased media sources, with legitimate experts.

I have no patience for any person or group that purposely attempts to mislead the American people... but those who commission, create, and distribute "Junk Science" are practicing an even more irresponsible and un-American trade.

Junk science is a term used to describe quasi-scientific reports written with "political, ideological, financial, and other unscientific motives" (Wikipedia). It's a completely unethical practice aimed at suppressing the truth.

A recent example: when the White House Council on Environmental Quality released a report on climate change in 2005, Philip Cooney (an economist, lawyer, and lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute) with literally NO scientific training or background unilaterally edited government scientist's reports in order to "create an enhanced sense of scientific uncertainty about climate change and its implications" (according to Rick Piltz, a senior associate in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, who resigned in protest of Cooney's actions). It is also interesting to note that only months after resigning his position in the Bush administration (virtually in disgrace), Cooney accepted a position at ExxonMobil.

I say this not to point a finger solely at Republicans, or the Bush administration, or the oil industry... this kind of "science" is far more widespread (the evolution debate and Tobacco company's smoking "research" come to mind). My point is that, for the sake of truth, this practice needs to be stopped!