When Subpoenas Threaten Climate Science
Science is about what <i>is</i>, not what we should <i>do</i>. Politics is about what we should do.<p>The minute you cross that line, the minute you start advocating for an <i>outcome</i>, you are an activist, not a scientist. You are now playing in the political arena. Messaging becomes important. Fundraising. Making sure the right people get elected. Preventing the wrong people from getting elected.<p>As a layman who likes watching smart people argue, I&#x27;d said for some time that the climate debate is the worst public debate today, mainly because it&#x27;s dragging the name &quot;science&quot; through the muck of politics.<p>Now I&#x27;m hearing from both sides that politicians (gasp!) want to get involved. Well, what the hell did you expect? Do you really think it&#x27;s reasonable one day to be yucking it up with politicians from party X and then expect folks from party Y to just leave you alone because science?<p>Real scientists can&#x27;t be advocates. It&#x27;s a conflict of interests. This, along with open science being a requirement for public funding, has become abundantly clear over the last few years. Science itself it awesome. It&#x27;s mankind&#x27;s only future. The actual practice of science over the last decade or so has been full of fail.<p>If you&#x27;d like to hear the other side, here&#x27;s a great Reason article. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;reason.com&#x2F;archives&#x2F;2016&#x2F;07&#x2F;15&#x2F;the-lefts-insidious-war-on-the-free-spee" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;reason.com&#x2F;archives&#x2F;2016&#x2F;07&#x2F;15&#x2F;the-lefts-insidious-wa...</a><p>The bottom line is that if we want to make good public policy, we need scientists to honestly evaluate the science, not engage in political muck-raking, venture into economics of the year 2100, posit that big companies are misleading the common rubes through purposely-slanted studies, or anything else. Just science.