I suppose they could refrain from injecting their feelings into it. The science doesn't change if it is presented as simple information and not as a warning.
Many sciences are concerned with the consequences of human actions and it's hard if not impossible to describe these in meaningful ways without applying some criteria for what outcomes are good (desirable, positively evaluated) and what outcomes are bad (not desirable, negatively evaluated).
Besides, there is a whole area of science that maybe is more like engineering but is clearly worthwhile, too, even if it's not strictly a natural science only. For example, urban planning might not be a science in the strict sense but it's clearly important and involves scientific studies.
If policy makers can't get from climate scientist's an evaluation of the potential consequences of climate changes, then who else would produce these for them? Should they just make it up on the fly?
It is concerned with understanding health. It is unable to decide what is "good" or "bad" as that is in the eye of the beholder. That is why medicine presents the options gleaned from the gained understanding, leaving the individual to decide for themselves what is "good" amid all the different tradeoffs. The universe has no fundamental concept of "good" or "bad". It is something humans make up. It is curious that someone who seems to have an interest in science doesn't realize that.
It's false and somewhat naive to claim that such evaluations play no role in science, they are a crucial part of many sciences. For instance, they're needed to find worthwhile subjects of study. Not everything is theoretical physics.
You're talking about a consultant now. Yes, consultants take scientific understanding and help translate it into what the customer wants to hear: doing their best to interpret what the other person is likely to think is "good" or "bad". Which, I will add, is not absolute. Often patients reject the doctor's opinion of what is "good". It is technically possible for someone to be both a scientist and a consultant, of course. Humans can do many things. But generally medical doctors are focused on operating consultancies alone. There usually isn't enough time in the day to be both deeply engrossed in science and other professions at the same time. Generally speaking, medical doctors are not scientists in any meaningful sense. That's literally why we call them medical doctors or physicians instead of calling them scientists... Yes, there are some exceptions, as there always is. But, to be sure, even in those exceptional cases, we don't call them scientists when they are operating in a consulting capacity.
If a seismologist has evidence that an earthquake is likely to occur in a certain area, should they not warn the public about it? I would say they clearly should, and any other view about this seems bizarre to me. I find it equally implausible to not call a seismologist who warns about an impending earthquake a scientist. They're a geophysicist or geologist. Or take an astronomer warning about a possible collision of a meteor with Earth -- astronomy is a science, so why would that person not be called a scientist?
There is a an array of scientific disciplines for whom consulting (in your sense of the word) is a frequent, though not primary part of their activity, and we certainly still call them scientists. Material science, vulcanology, epidemiology, seismology, meteorology, biology, climate science, economics,... basically any science that involves the study of processes that might have important consequences for mankind.
The Internet gives equal voice to both, but the latter will drown out the former until people stop listening altogether.
Oh well. Its mine, not yours, so who cares?
> basically any science that involves the study of processes that might have important consequences for mankind.
Scientists seek to gain the understanding, but generally taking that understanding and turning it into what a society is concerned with is left for other disciplines (e.g. engineering). Generally, scientists don't also have the social understanding of the application of science. It is not impossible for them to. Humans can do many things. But it is generally impractical given that there is only so much time in the day. Having the beat of the social ground is a full-time job in and of itself.
I know HN leans towards DIY and struggle to think that they can't do it all, but out there in the real world there is much greater division of labour. A random scientist's warning holds no more weight than a hobo on the street's warning after said hobo has read the same research.
> A random scientist's warning holds no more weight than a hobo on the street's warning
You must be joking, and I wish people would do that less often when talking about serious topics.
In reality, medicine wants your money and that's all that matters to them.
Scientists are also humans with their own value judgment which is sometimes very flawed (see e.g. Richard Lynn and his race science) and sometimes with revolutionary insights that expands our shared empathy for the world around us (see e.g. Jane Godall).
Often when I hear a statement like this I see it as a thought terminating cliché. The value judgement of a scientists is often disregarded only when it is contrary (or inconvenient) to the speaker’s argument.
But when we speak about climate science, or something else "close to Earth", then it is impossible to imagine how they may not be concerned with good and bad.
Theoretically speaking, science is looking for a truth, and any truth, but practically it seeks useful knowledge, and if you look into any scientific article, it starts with an argument that the results presented in the article are useful, and not just the authors of the article think so, but there are (were) other people too. Undergraduates are explicitly taught to write articles like that.
Except here the appeal to emotion suggests that it isn't useful. The results would be useful on their own without having to fabricate additional information to make it useful otherwise.
It is understandable why scientists are getting wrapped up in their emotions, but anyone in science is intended to learn how to separate logic and emotion. That is what the education system is for. That breakdown we're seeing leads to complex communication issues.
Sometimes, the outcome of a scenario will be unambiguously tragic for humanity. The collapse of the AMOC would be one such event.
Whether or not it is tragic depends on the beholder. Some people are quite happy to watch the demise of humanity. Science is only interested in what is. How you feel about it is up to you. Certainly scientists are going to have their personal feelings about the science. They are but simple humans, after all. But those feelings are no more useful than your arbitrary feelings.
No, it's not interesting at all: the clamouring for climate scientists to not use words like "bad" about increased severity and frequency of forest fires, flash floods, droughts, etc is just the expected outcome of boring old corruption. There's really no other reason for someone to object to calling tornadoes "bad" than them or theirs getting paid to say it.