[badgersandjam]

Not sure why you're downvoted. That's bad science regardless of how you look at it. The use of the word "climate" in a quote is a big indicator of bad science as it happens to pay the bills and make a good quote in the press before all other concerns at the moment.

If it turns up in a paper at the end and is peer reviewed, then it has some credence but before that, nada.

Feynman is rolling in his grave again...

Edit: if you downvote, explain yourself or you're a coward and a hypocrite.

[waterlesscloud]

It's bad, irresponsible science. And it's bad, irresponsible journalism to make it a giant orange pull quote.

"I think it's X. But I don't have any evidence yet."

If you don't have any evidence, you shouldn't be talking about it to a journalist. Who, quite predictably, is going to make a big deal out of it.

This sort of thing actively hurts the climate change cause. It's bad, and shouldn't be done.

[lotsofmangos]

By that standard, Einstein should have not talked to journalists about his 1905 relativity paper until the first prediction that wasn't null was experimentally verified in 1938.

[waterlesscloud]

That's simply not a comparable situation.

[anon1385]

Somewhat amusingly, it was actually a remarkably comparable situation.

There was a significant populist anti-relativity movement in Germany in the 1920s: http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/en/news/features/feature7

>Although they had previously played no role in German academic life, during the 1920s scores of self-proclaimed researchers alleged to have proved the theory of relativity to be scientifically incorrect. Because the arguments set out in hundreds of ensuing publications frequently rested on fundamental misunderstandings of Einstein’s new theory, their accounts have largely been ignored by traditional history of science.

>Einstein’s opponents were simply not prepared to question their own worldviews and instead sought alternative explanations for why their objections were disregarded by the academics. With time, many turned to conspiracy to account for their marginal status: plots favoring Einstein, so they imagined, explained his success and their marginalization. Having reached this point, any sort of resolution of the controversy had become impossible.

And from a review of the book ( http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.2181.pdf )

>Nevertheless, anti-relativists were convinced that their opinions were being suppressed. Indeed, many believed that conspiracies were at work that thwarted the promotion of their ideas. The fact that for them relativity was obviously wrong, yet still so very successful, strengthened the contention that a plot was at play—and some anti-relativists were convinced that the co-conspirators were Jewish. Jews were held to dominate both the newspaper business and the new discipline of theoretical physics; they could thus easily advertize one of their own (Einstein) and his fallacious work (relativity). Gehrcke, for instance, kept emphasizing that the successes of relativity could only be explained by a state of “mass hypnosis”, brought about by excessive and one-sided reporting.

Hmm…

[waterlesscloud]

That's interesting, but it certainly was not one of the largest political debates of its era.

That the situation climate change is in. So it's not a comparable situation.

[lotsofmangos]

"This world is a strange madhouse, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political affiliation." - Albert Einstein.

[Gravityloss]

I guess there was a too high expectation of the audience, and it would better to just stick to what there is evidence of already.

[waterlesscloud]

Yes, actually, particularly when talking to a journalist about possible climate change effects that's precisely what scientists should do.

If you need proof this kind of thing hurts the climate change cause, look at this thread, which is nearly entirely a debate over her one statement and nothing about any actual science.

[gd1]

Nothing hurts the climate change 'cause' more than it being a 'cause' in the first place. Activism dressed up as science smells, and plenty of people who would otherwise be sympathetic can smell it.

[badgersandjam]

This is exactly the problem. There should be no activism and no causes in science. Each of them implies bias and results in less than ethical practice and unreliable theories.

To ask for rationality and the application of the scientific method results in claims of denialism and instant burying of the opinion.

That's not acceptable.

[lotsofmangos]

Scientists are not magical logic faeries separated from the seething mass of culture by a wall of pure mathematics. Science is intertwined in life.

Once you have found that a species is being wiped out, you could stand on the sidelines and measure its decline, watching dispassionately, knowing that you can reach a good solid conclusion about what was killing them when the last dissection is fully documented, or you could chose to interfere and try and prevent the extinction.

However, if what is killing them is well funded human activity, you do not have a hope in hell of interfering successfully without getting political.

[pyre]

The "problem" is that even with the science pointing in a particular direction, if monied interests don't like that direction, they turn it into a political issue with FUD (personal attacks on the scientists rather than the science, stirring up the "science is an affront to God" crowd, etc).

[Gravityloss]

I disagree completely.

Thought experiment:

An astronomer sees a comet approaching earth, that will kill billions.

He wants to prevent those deaths.

He starts campaigning for methods to prevent that: comet deflection, shelter building, whatever.

Seems logical and humane to me.

[happyscrappy]

This cuts both ways. Demonizing one side ends all rational discussion. Where are the Tip O'Neils of today? We need them desperately.