> “We were actively told if we start to talk about solutions, if we start to talk about the policy implications of our work, we will have abandoned our supposed ‘scientific neutrality,’” Gill said. “And then people will not trust us anymore on the science.”

This is basically correct, and it is the thing that every climate activist does not seem to understand.

When you start treating your favored issue in moralistic terms, and insisting that it's an emergency that must be acted upon now, then you have entered into the realm of political economy. You're now making a statement that the issue you're advocating for is more important than other issues, and people take umbrage with that.

It may seem obvious at first glance that if we're careening towards 1.5C with myriad and unknown feedback loops that might lead to ecological disaster, we should stop emitting carbon, and pretty quickly. We only have six years.

Except to do that, we have to end almost all transportation, reduce electricity usage substantially, stop using all concrete, stop flying airplanes, stop eating beef, stop using petrochemical fertilizers, etc. It is not an exaggeration to say that billions of people would die within 12 months.

You might complain and say, my goodness, we've had fifty years to be reducing these things, of course we can switch to sustainable energy and materials. But we didn't. So now we have to decide what's most important, and if it's your position that the most important thing right now is to stop emitting carbon -- or even by half, within six years -- then your position is utterly insane and divorced from reality, because yes, many people will die as a direct result.

And if you associate yourself with the position that "we have to take immediate and drastic cuts that will cause huge numbers of people to quickly die," then people might get upset with you.