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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.

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).

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.

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!"

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.

Problem is we have about 50% certainty...

So, if we continue the thought experiment, and say thousands of people have been making observations of the comet for five years and have come to roughly 50% impact probability estimate, with multiple independent methods. And that impact would likely kill maybe a billion people.

And you say it is unacceptable for them to advocate doing anything?

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risks/a410777.html

Current impact risks overview is here. 50% chance of a large object would certainly be unprecedented.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1126.pdf

Now, replace the comet watchers with paleoclimate researchers finding out what happened when the planet last time crossed 450 PPM (the other way around).

That's not what I'm saying. I can't make it much clearer than:

a) suddenly out of the blue, a Ford Transit mutates into a toaster.

b) someone is "pretty sure it is related to the impending comet impact".

c) Everyone goes YAY SCIENCE!!!

Sorry but derision is the only thing left. It's not science, it's religion.

a) suddenly out of the blue someone delivers a load of fish.

b) Some guy doesn't notice this and goes "pretty fucking sweet; I'm totally wasted on mushrooms and I reckon that bearded dude over there turned that loaf of bread into all those fish. Damn I've got the munchies."

c) HE'S THE FUCKING MESSIAH.

There is no causality chain established other than a hunch.

Ok, I thought you categorically opposed scientists being activists.

I do agree that some things are perhaps too easily reported or assumed to be caused by climate change when there is not much evidence to support that (yet).

Inaction is always easier than action, so which way do you think that people will choose?

If we do spend the time, money, and effort to do things like reduce emissions, will we be worse off than we were? Would it not make more sense to use renewable energy resources, and save up the 'easy' sources of energy (oil, coal, etc) for other applications?

Entirely agree!

But blaming everything on climate suddenly isn't the right answer. Perhaps someone lost a ship load of PCP in the sea and they just snuffed it. And they're trying to hide that.

Another hypothesis that could be tested rather than "fuck blame it on climate so we can get some funding and get some nice new Herman Miller chairs and a new MacBook each"

That's engineering, not science.

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