Paul Ryan, an apparently bright man of principle

Mitt Romney has picked his running mate.

It's Paul Ryan (*1970), a trained political scientist and economist, a member of the House and the boss of the budget committee over there. But given Mitt Romney's... well... ambiguity on many issues, this choice has been a very good surprise for many folks. I won't discuss all the reasons because I don't know Ryan too well...

To have an idea how he speaks, listen to his comments that welfare should be measured by the outcomes and not by the amount of money that was spent.

Also importantly, as Pierre Gosselin discusses in quite some detail, Ryan voted against pretty much all fashionable bills designed to weaken the economy, distort the markets, and use CO2 as an excuse.

After the first Climategate, he was very aware of its meaning and of the importance of the scientific integrity in the scientific process. At that time, he wrote:

To the detriment of the American people, environmental issues have fallen victim to the hyper-politicization of science. The Journal Times editorial board sensibly cautioned both sides of the political divide against this unfortunate trend (“Science must trump spin,” The Journal Times, 12/3/09). At issue in the Journal Times’ recent editorial and on the minds of many Copenhagen observers are published e-mail exchanges from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). These e-mails from leading climatologists make clear efforts to use statistical tricks to distort their findings and intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change. The CRU e-mail scandal reveals a perversion of the scientific method, where data were manipulated to support a predetermined conclusion. The e-mail scandal has not only forced the resignation of a number of discredited scientists, but it also marks a major step back on the need to preserve the integrity of the scientific community. While interests on both sides of the issue will debate the relevance of the manipulated or otherwise omitted data, these revelations undermine confidence in the scientific data driving the climate change debates.”