Response to "When Scientists Politicize Science"

I took several things from this article that I believe will help me in understanding further readings for the rest of the class. Pielke creates this aura around Bjorn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist and uses it as his main example to relate the linear model. The linear model which Pielke describes in the article as getting the science right before any policymaking. It's important for me to remember that through the linear model mounds of governmental policy have been made on the basis of perceived "sound science" in the past so it's become a very established path for future policy's to be made in the future. Critics such as those debating the theory of climate change know this and know the power of a resolution on a scientific issue. What critics of climate change such as Bjorn Lomborg are trying to do is push the scientific issue "upstream" and away from a resolution. The battle over climate change will likely end with the scientific resolution on it which will coincide with policy action or inaction.
I thought is was interesting when Pielke writes "one great irony of the debate over The Skeptical Environmentalist is that its fame owes more to its critics than to any fundamental insights of the book." I think that this passage will be important to remember as the course progresses. Certain instances within controversial issues don't have to provide something profound or groundbreaking as long as it strikes the right/wrong chords with the right people to be effective and/or significant.
Lastly I noted the importance of the criticism of the Cambridge University Press for publishing the book. Publishers take great risk in a book like The Skeptical Environmentalist because they are held as responsible if not more than the author's pen. I read that the book was published by the Social Sciences division of Cambridge University Press and Pielke notes that much of the debate over the book occurred in the popular media and on the internet instead of in technical journals. I wonder if the reason for criticism of the book coming from other outlets questioning the scientific legitimacy of the claims had to do with the book being social science piece instead of under another title.