the vocal politicization of scientists has been a massive problem in getting their views/opinions taken seriously by some sectors of the public and political class. this is a feature of the last 10 years and probably social media etc.
Very convincingly explained. Most of the time Politicians very well understand the implications of ignoring the recommendations of the Scientific community but political compulsions compel them to ignore these. Sad but true.😒
"Follow the science" is an unscientific kind of statement, in that it is vague.
"Accept, for your public policy planning purposes, that the consensus of a large majority of papers in peer-reviewed journals, for many years consistently, should be used as guides from which you should deviate only because the standard indicated is hopelessly expensive or unpopular"
...is fifteen times as many words, and thus one-fifteenth as effective as propaganda or meme; but it is a precise, quantifiable, actionable standard and thus quite scientific. I would like to hear any arguments for not following it, as a professional standard for public servants, including those elected.
IMHO, science is not about absolutes but rather interpretation of observations. It informs the odds (also not absolute) one would place on one future outcome vs another. If one seeks an unequivocal absolute answer, they must go to religion or something of that sort rather than science. Policy makers need to weigh the odds and place bets on behalf of the public.
Fields like hydrogen, synfuels, aviation fuels, biofuels, forestry, and CCS, are inundated with industry-funded studies and reports designed to favor industry-friendly outcomes. Whole university programs in forestry and in energy are effectively captured by industry. As a result, I find myself forced to get into detail with policymakers on why a view is valid which is outnumbered and outgunned by contrary reports, sometimes from ivy-league universities. Even the IPCC scenarios rely on some form of carbon capture and sequestration (which cannot be delivered at that speed and scale). Will you cover all that?
How often can or does the staffer offer advice ahead of the interview on how to prepare the technical content or the technical interpretation? Or fill in background on the political decision options on offer?
Is the conversation along the lines of "this is the way it is" and provide a single answer; or expressed as a set of trade-offs between alternative "least bad" approaches?
the vocal politicization of scientists has been a massive problem in getting their views/opinions taken seriously by some sectors of the public and political class. this is a feature of the last 10 years and probably social media etc.
Very convincingly explained. Most of the time Politicians very well understand the implications of ignoring the recommendations of the Scientific community but political compulsions compel them to ignore these. Sad but true.😒
"Follow the science" is an unscientific kind of statement, in that it is vague.
"Accept, for your public policy planning purposes, that the consensus of a large majority of papers in peer-reviewed journals, for many years consistently, should be used as guides from which you should deviate only because the standard indicated is hopelessly expensive or unpopular"
...is fifteen times as many words, and thus one-fifteenth as effective as propaganda or meme; but it is a precise, quantifiable, actionable standard and thus quite scientific. I would like to hear any arguments for not following it, as a professional standard for public servants, including those elected.
"what constitutes “science” from various “experts” rarely align." Case in point - the acceptance of Indigenous Science - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-science-takes-so-long-catch-up-traditional-knowledge-180968216/
IMHO, science is not about absolutes but rather interpretation of observations. It informs the odds (also not absolute) one would place on one future outcome vs another. If one seeks an unequivocal absolute answer, they must go to religion or something of that sort rather than science. Policy makers need to weigh the odds and place bets on behalf of the public.
Fields like hydrogen, synfuels, aviation fuels, biofuels, forestry, and CCS, are inundated with industry-funded studies and reports designed to favor industry-friendly outcomes. Whole university programs in forestry and in energy are effectively captured by industry. As a result, I find myself forced to get into detail with policymakers on why a view is valid which is outnumbered and outgunned by contrary reports, sometimes from ivy-league universities. Even the IPCC scenarios rely on some form of carbon capture and sequestration (which cannot be delivered at that speed and scale). Will you cover all that?
How often can or does the staffer offer advice ahead of the interview on how to prepare the technical content or the technical interpretation? Or fill in background on the political decision options on offer?
Is the conversation along the lines of "this is the way it is" and provide a single answer; or expressed as a set of trade-offs between alternative "least bad" approaches?