A recent meeting at Purdue asked the following very reasonable questions:
- Have scientists become ‘too political’ in their advocacy of particular climate change mitigation and adaptation policies? Do the benefits of engaging in political advocacy outweigh the risks of losing their credibility as scientists?
- What role has the media, including the blogosphere and the Internet, played in this growing contradiction? How has the media shaped the way that climate science is debated, disputed, and created? Is there a ‘better’ way for climate scientists to work with the media?
- Moving forward, is there a better role for climate scientists in political and policy debates, and if so, what would it look like?
They assembled a panel that seems as if it had been assembled by Bizarro-Tobis. “Three people me least want to hear from on these questions: Pielke Jr., Revkin and Curry. Hope they can all come!”
But they’re good questions.