First...

What does "politicization of science" mean to me?

I agree with Mr. Dessler. It is is "misrepresenting the peer-reviewed literature ... [and] includes cherry-picking, dueling experts, or any of the myriad other methods of pushing faulty science."

I would add that it includes putting on blinders and refusing to accept any information that might contradict or undermine the result you really really really want to see. It could also include setting up a think tank not to gather information or solve a specific problem, but to search high and low for any scrap of evidence that might remotely support your social or economic agenda.

Second...

Is anyone concerned about "politicization of politics"?

I am not a political scientist and my college experience includes only a few such courses, but I am under the impression that "politics" was not always a dirty word. What the mass media now refer to as "politics" or something being "politicized" is: (1) used as a catch-all for corruption, hypocrisy, lying, and putting one's selfish needs ahead of national interests or (2) used pejoratively in reference to someone, say an experienced atmospheric scientist, who brings valuable information to our attention in hopes of saving our civilization.

It seem to me that the first case is not really politics and that the second case would be appropriate, but only if it could be stripped of negative connotations.

Isn't "politics" supposed to be the art of negotiation between competing social and economic views? The art of compromise? The search for common ground?

Someone -- perhaps one of the Grist bloggers will know who -- once said that the liberals are in Washington to make sure we have laws protecting labor, the unemployed, the environment, consumers, et cetera, and the conservatives are there to make sure it is not done too fast, in excess, or creates economic instabilty. But the general goal for both should be to improve the nation's general welfare. I would guess that the underlying assumption is that the politicians will fight only for views that they sincerely believe in and that will protect the nation and improve the lives of the citizens.

I believe we need more politics of this nature in Washington.

backcut-

I don't know anything about the example you gave, but it sounds like the lesson is that one should not base policy on a single peer-reviewed publications.  Errors can and often do make it through peer review.  One should wait for important results to be verified by independent groups in other peer-reviewed publications.  Conclusions that have been multiply verified can be confidently considered to be right.

regards

The use of science to support an ideological agenda, in other words to add non-scientific meaning to works of science.

???

Whiskerfish

Your definition is irrelevant. If its bad science its bad science. And has nothing to do with Peer review and non-peer review.

And bad science or good science, none of this Jive has anything to do with the politicising science.

EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE FACT:

And that is the very act of you coming up with this bogus and irrelevant definition is a symptom of your camp politicising science.

Its just you point-scoring in lieu of you coming up with any actual evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.

Come up with the evidence Dessler.

And you won't have to continue with this tortured nonsense.

"This is hogwash, of course. While Carter is correct that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, this is well understood and in no way undermines the idea that increasing CO2 will lead to global warming. "

Yes it does undermine the idea that increasing CO2 will lead to (much) global warming so you can get that right for starters.

" Carter concluded that the relation between carbon dioxide and temperature is unclear.

This is hogwash, of course."

No its not hogwash. The relatitionship is unclear. You are talking Hogwash and not Bob Carter. This is because you are part of a movement that has politicised the debate.

"In the end, claims repeatedly verified by the scientific community (e.g., the earth is warming..."

Well thats a totally untenable statement right there. Unless you can give us a start and finish date.

So you see you have long since ceased to be a scientist on this subject. Because you have politicised the subject and decided not to go where the chips fall.

"Backcut" -- are you a logger?  I know one mark of a good sawyer is placing the backcut correctly (and I've seen good and bad work aplenty).

I'm watching one recovery area that burned in 1987 (first fire after 40 years of fire suppression, very hot).  So far the unsalvaged area that was already off limits has come back far better than the salvage-logged and replanted area that the FS came into with bulldozers, scraped and piled and burned after salvage-logging, and planted with Ponderosa pine.  There's something to be said for the layer of stuff that builds up in soil after a fire, at least compared to the loose dust left by a bulldozer -- both cause runoff, but I'd say the bulldozers do more to lose what's left of the soil than the waxy stuff in the soil left undisturbed.

Standing dead trees host woodpeckers and flickers and raptors, and tend to decay in place for some years before they fall.  Hardwoods will indeed burn again after standing dead and dry for years; fire-killed (or almost killed) conifers in my experience will rot in place, get punky and soft and full of living things and fall already coming apart.

You have to do the field study to say what happens after a fire over a period of years, but I've seen  enough salvage logging, compared to prescribed burns, to believe that the salvage logging isn't helping regenerate the forest, as it's been done to date.