[mseebach]

I think a tangential issue is the assumption that science can decide one particular course of action to be the correct one, often expressed in a form such as that the science of climate change tells us that we must build solar farms and wind turbines. Science doesn't, in fact, tell us that, directly at least -- but it can tell us that if we want to combat the root cause of climate change, we need to decrease CO2 emissions, and major component of CO2 emissions is electricity generation, and solar and wind are reasonably practical, comparably low CO2 options, compared to most other option. But they are also expensive, and science can't tell us if it's 'worth it' (specifically if its more 'worth it' than other competing expenses), for an example.

Scientists understand this, headline writing journalists less so, and agenda-pushing activists and politicians definitely don't.

[dnautics]

Do scientists understand this? I've tried to have this sort of conversation with scientists and most don't see things that way. I don't know if contemporary scientists see themselves as activists or if they are too hooked on grant money to give up the notion of scientific hyperauthority (reminded of Upton Sinclair's lament about getting people to understand things)

[andygates]

Yes, in great numbers they do. The spur to activism is in response to political foot-dragging, and the party bias is simply because the Republicans resist the whole issue en masse.

"Hooked on grant money" is a smear trope that is used by political opponents. If there was a credible scientific opposition to GW, they'd get all the grant money they could handle. It just ain't so.

[dnautics]

no the spur to activism existed long before trump was elected president. I haven't been an active mainstream scientist for about 4 years or so.

> If there was a credible scientific opposition to GW, they'd get all the grant money they could handle.

Really? Without claiming that GW is not real (I think it likely is). What journals would they be published in? Who would review their papers? Who would review their grants? Where would this hypothetical credible GW scientist be getting their PhD from? Which advisor and committee members signed off on their degree? The overall process for getting money for science (and getting to the point where you're even in contention for getting money) is not different between chemistry and biology and climate science, and there is so much pettiness in the process in chem and bio, it's disgusting (and a large part of why I left). In the end whether or not you get money pretty much boils down to who you know and what your pedigree is.

I guess my overall point is that at this juncture in history, our scientific edifice is on very shaky foundations across the board. As much as I disagree with Trump, the fealty to which "anti-Trump" writ large gives over to "science", or really "scientific authority" is unfortunate. Moreover it's not 'being hooked on grant money' per se, but in order for scientists to keep being paid like they are, they must accept the validity of the system as a whole.

[mseebach]

Generally it's my experience that if you catch a scientist whose work has been through the media, they're quite humble "well, actually" about it. But yeah, certain areas does appear to have become very politicised. I'll try to keep my faith, and suspect that it's worst in fairly small (very loud) circle, and that the rank and file is more modest.