The Politicization of Science Continues

The Washington Post has an op-ed warning of the dangers of climate change. It is instructive because it suffers from many of the fallacies that plague most alarmist warnings. Here is the opening (emphasis added):

“CLIMATE CHANGE is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

So says — in response to a request from Congress — the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the country’s preeminent institution chartered to provide scientific advice to lawmakers.

In a report titled “America’s Climate Choices,” a panel of scientific and policy experts also concludes that the risks of inaction far outweigh the risks or disadvantages of action.

The "risks or disadvantages of action" are mostly economic. How can an "institution chartered to provide scientific advice to lawmakers" weigh the economic consequences of fighting climate change? That is not a scientific question - it is an economic and public policy question. Is this another example of the politicization of science?

The Post throws in a cheap shot:

None of this is news. But it is newsworthy, sadly, because the Republican Party, and therefore the U.S. government, have moved so far from reality and responsibility in their approach to climate change.

Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency not too long ago. They didn't do anything about climate change. The current situation is not entirely the Republicans' fault. Furthermore, I'd like to know who is doing something about climate change. This quote acknowledges that other countries are doing nothing:

Given the global nature of the problem, the report says, U.S. action can’t be sufficient, but “strong U.S. emission efforts will enhance our ability to influence other countries to do the same.”

By the way, how is that a scientific conclusion?  Secondly, if we don't "influence other countries to do the same", are our efforts worthless?

Here's the Post's conclusion:

Every candidate for political office in the next cycle, including for president, should be asked whether they disagree with the scientific consensus of America’s premier scientific advisory group, as reflected in this report; and if so, on what basis they disagree; and if not, what they propose to do about the rising seas, spreading deserts and intensifying storms that, absent a change in policy, loom on America’s horizon.

This report isn't a scientific consensus, it's a political document. I disagree that costs of inaction outweigh the costs of action. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling argument otherwise. Climate change action does not survive a cost benefit analysis. That's why no one to date has done one thing about it.