I was reading an article and came across this:
Sid Richardson College senior Maddie Camp said she thinks it is important to examine skeptics’ viewpoints to make progress on climate policy.
Why is this academic getting involved with policy at all?
You are either an impartial scientist- in which case you cannot also be advocating particular policies. Or you are advocating particular policies and so are not a scientist.
“Because climate change is really a policy issue, skeptics bottleneck the whole process of beginning to address climate change, so it makes sense to understand that barrier and think about how we can move past it,” Camp said.
Yet again, another academic (and I’m not even bothering to check as they all are) who wants to have their cake and eat it. They want to be seen as “impartial” and dispassionate at the same time as passionately advocating a particular point of view.
Or to use other analogies:
- They want to stand in the election AND count the result
- To play football AND be the referee
- To be in the play AND write the critique.
etc.
