You’re shifting from the conceptual to the rhetorical, Mosh.
On the rhetorical level, sounding more business-like might be a better strategy in congress, if only to create an aura of INTEGRITY (tm). But your observation still carries that prescription: if you want to have INTEGRITY (tm) in congress, try to sound business-like.
On the conceptual level, this business-like strategy only hides the prescription. Compare (1) AGW is real and we should seek to implement a carbon-tax with (2) AGW is real; a carbon tax might reduce its long-term effects. The conceptual difference between (1) and (2) is not that (1) is normative, while (2) is not.
The question we should ask ourselves should be this one: on what authority can you say (1) or (2)? All this is in Toulmin’s Uses of Argument. This is very basic.
John NG says something along these lines there:
Here’s Hansen’s 1988 testimony, btw:
I don’t see any carbon tax there.