[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.

[badgersandjam]

You'd make a good politician because you make a bad human now with all that word twisting.

[dang]

Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.

[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.

[badgersandjam]

There's a pretty big assumption in there. That the comet is approaching earth and not going to miss it by half a parsec or that the comet is infact a bit of dirt on the lens of the telescope...

All of which need testing first before you start waving your hands around and start saying "WE'RE GOING TO FUCKING DIE - RUN!"

[Gravityloss]

We operate in an uncertain world. In many cases it is hard to obtain 99.999% certainties, and we must act with less certainty.

Not acting is a choice as well, and everyone bears the responsibility for that too.

[badgersandjam]

Problem is we have about 50% certainty...

[debacle]

That's engineering, not science.

[happyscrappy]

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