Maybe I'm naive, but I think the administration, with its access to any experts it cares to contact, knows the science perfectly well.

However, they color it through the perspective of an emphasis on encouraging the economy and whatever rosy optimism their religious beliefs might suggest to reach the stance of downplaying the reality and risks of global warning. Just as we often hear how well the war in Iraq is going, when that may not be the report those in power are hearing from the field.

So I view the global warning debate as a battle for the minds of the public, and in essence the usual battle between (uncertain effects on) the long-term health of humanity and shorter term and economic considerations. One deserving of being battled, but not one where I have particular credentials or influence.