While politicians and world leaders debate the causes of climate change and how to respond, district scientists are adopting a “no-regrets strategy” to get ready, even if the worst-case scenarios don’t come to pass.
That’s the difference between most scientists and most politicians. Reality.
Conversely, I put it to you that if scientists did deal with reality, it wouldn’t be science – it’d be engineering. (joking, sort of).
But really, scientists get to theorize upon these things and come up with various plans to deal with them, often coercing money out the government to do so. It’s the politicians who have to deal with the reality of getting any of it done…
One note on this specific article – It’s all being sponsored by SWFWMD, so I tend to distrust it. I worked with them in the ’80s and ’90s and remember their great land grabs and “interesting” business model.
I put it to you that if scientists did not deal with reality a) it wouldn’t be science, and b) the politicians wouldn’t have the slightest notion which way to move. At least with a little science in the mix they know what they’re for or against.
Let’s be a little fair. Scientists get the leisure of mental masturbation, i.e., worst-case scenario planning even when the worst-case is unlikely. Politicians actually have to find ways of paying for such plans and their methodologies. Even commissioning a study can have huge costs and ramifications.
Actually, I think you may be right. The difference between most scientists and most politicians is reality. Scientists don’t have to truly deal with it, whereas politicians do – though a goodly portion of them do so very poorly.