0 thoughts on “What I Would Say to President-Elect Trump and His Science Advisor”

  1. This is quite good. I wonder if there may also be a benefit to articulating that Science isn’t a competing interest, but rather a tool for informing better decisions about them. It seems that many in the in-coming administration might consider science to be just another opinion to be weighed. Science doesn’t get to be science, without objectivity and repetition. As such, it offers decision makers a reliable standard for clearer communication and transparency. Thanks.

    Reply
  2. Thank you Eric for thoughtfulness. I agree that we need to find ways to tell the story of our science in ways that non-scientists can relate.  Further, your ideas about how to engage the private sector in carrying the message to the new Administration is provocative – in a good way.  Thanks for your leadership and I look forward to seeing AGU’s plans take shape.

    Reply
  3. That’s OK, but I’d suggest following Jerry Brown’s advice and not be so tepid. Where is the message about sudden global climate change?

    Reply
  4. Very nice statement, but I couldn’t help but notice you would say nothing about climate change. This is despite the AGU stand on climate change, including the initial statement “Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.”

    I guess it would be a bit awkward, though, to raise this issue when Chevron remains a major sponsor of the Fall meeting and when a former ExxonMobil VP and 30 year employee sits on the AGU board. It might also be hard to explain why many of the union’s members have been leaving over AGU’s continued acceptance of fossil fuel money and why many of its members protested outside the recent Fall meeting.

    Of course, in what you wrote it might be hard to explain the contrast between two petitions. Why is there a major petition of your own members for AGU to follow its own rules and stop accepting funding from any organization that spreads science misinformation? What does that say about AGU’s credibility in petitioning President Trump to bring a Science Advisor into his inner circle? At this point, the two organizations seem in sync. Trump, like AGU will have a life-long ExxonMobil exploration engineer in his inner circle. Both the Trump campaign and the AGU Fall meeting boast oil company sponsorship.

    If the AGU strives to be a legitimate, independent voice of the scientific community, it must shed its fossil fuel funding.

    Reply

Leave a Comment