Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
That is a problem, but I don't agree that scientists should engage in the political PR rhetoric. Stick to the facts and when called to it, adjudge the political options presented ("this is in accord with scientific understandings and observations, that is not"). But, if anything, science needs to be further removed from politics rather than more closely wedded to politics. Part of the problem now, is that one party has adopted part of the science, in order to shape and push a larger governance agenda, and the other party has countered by rejecting science in order to attack their rival's agenda. This problem isn't going to be resolved by making science more political and removing the conditional phrasing which actually makes scientific statements more accurate. I wouldn't be opposed Dr Chu taking on a more public stance and advocacy role, nor to the heads of the various national and international scientific organizations, at least as far as properly quantifying and qualifying the changes, causes of change, and the risks and dangers associated with those changes. I just think that we have to be careful about politicizing and polarizing the issue any further, and see this as a big part of the problem now.
Like it or not, it's the political sphere where the problem has to be resolved, because it's the politicians that we entrust to do big things on a grand scale. Identifying AGW was a scientific process, but fixing it is going to be a political one.
People are emotional creatures, not logical ones. That's why it took about 3 million years of human evolution before we figured out this thing called science. People and the politicians they elect are not going to be swayed by numbers and charts and graphs and tables. The reason AGW denialism has been so successful (and tobacco/cancer denialism before it) was the opponents were able to devise a strategy that played to people's desire to continue doing what they had been doing all along without having to change.