Yes, I agree that when the new administration says a Climate Action Plan is unnecessary, I interpret that to mean they reject the science of modern climate change. But the statement on their website doesn't come right out and say that. It just objects to a previous policy without saying why.
I try to keep in mind that even among people who agree that climate is changing, and that we're at least in part responsible, they might disagree on what action we should take. And I suppose one extreme view is that we don't do anything, i.e. an action plan is unnecessary.
We'll have to see where this goes (if anywhere), and more importantly stand up for the view that science matters. This isn't just about climate science, you know.
Dan, maybe your comment was thoroughly tongue-in-cheek, but there's an implicit and valuable message to what you say: government can't take every scientific discipline into account, only the ones where ignoring that component of science has the potential to impact large sectors of the country negatively. I think the vast majority of climate change scientists would agree that climate change is having huge negative impacts across numerous sectors and should be taken seriously.
At the risk of sounding maudlin, I'm reminded of when I was growing up, when scientific studies on the impacts of acid rain, clean water, and the ozone hole helped drive policy changes that ultimately benefited large numbers of people. I still remember a commercial about clean water, where a fisherman is wading through a stream, picking up dead fish and commenting "Hey, they don't smell so bad." The clean water act was signed into law soon after (although recently it has come under attack). The scary difference now is that a new political climate (ha!) is rejecting science, not debating how to deal with our problems.
Is Archean geology important to public policy? Maybe, and I'm just too ignorant to know. But personally I'm not bothered by the fact that one of my beloved fields of inquiry, metamorphic petrology, isn't explicitly addressed in government. Well, except that a couple years ago congressional Republicans tried to gut funding to NSF Geosciences because it engages in climate change research, cuts that would affect us all, even the lowly petrologists.