Frankly, the agenda of this book puzzles me. Is there political counterflow that compromises integrity in some parts of science? Of course there is. For mill

Frankly, the agenda of this book puzzles me. Is there political counterflow that compromises integrity in some parts of science? Of course there is. For millenia this has been so. From Gallileo to Darwin to Haber to Einstein, the political or religious disruptions arising from science theory or experiment or technology often prompt someone to argue that governmental policy should not change in the light new facts or a new interpretation -- not if that change disrupts cherished societal values or impedes vested interests. It sounds like the author's argument is that political winds WITHIN scientific communities are fomenting bias in their work because they're not satisfied with publishing papers but now want to effect political change. Therefore they tolerate no dissent from an official party line. Perhaps climate change warrants such circumspection, but I know of no other scientific subdiscipline that does. As such, the rise in politics in ONE scientific subject doesn't justify a book that seems to tar and feather ALL of science. I suspect a book that attacks only the climate science community was deemed to narrow to attract a broad audience. And of course, exploring that topic wouldn't compellingly break new ground either. Finally, it seems to me that this is exactly the WRONG time in history to be impugning science or scientists. Without concrete and viable suggestions of how to redress the forces that have broadly compromised scientific integrity (which I doubt the author proposes), chinking away at science's armor can only aid the cause of anti-science, and feed the rising barbarian horde.