It all depends on your ethical system. Under many ethical systems, there are usually plenty of times when lying is good. There’s not an inherent reason to protect the sanctity of science. Science is just a tool to produce answers. Keeping it ‘pure’ so that it is more believable is nice, but it’s hardly the end-all-be-all. If there were an asteroid that you scientifically calculated was going to hit the earth in say Dhaka, Bangladesh and likely destroy the city and you knew that first world countries could prevent that disaster in some way, I think many ethical systems would say it was OK to fudge the data and say the asteroid was bigger than it really was or was going to impact a city that would be more likely to roust them to action. You would probably have to weigh that with the fact that you might be less believable in the future, but saving millions of lives is generally a good thing.
Science is a special case. If you falsify a result then anything built on that result is then falsified, and the falsehood may not be found for a long time, especially in theoretical work.
There’s lies, there’s misrepresentations … and then there’s morons …
The NWS receive much criticism for dropping all the Hurricane Warnings for Sandy when she transitioned to an extratropical cyclone out at sea … relying on the local offices to issue the watches and warnings appropriate for their service area … apparently when the Hurricane Warning was dropped and replaced by a Hurricane Force Wind Warning, some people thought it was perfectly safe to return home, because you know it’s not a hurricane so how bad could it be? … the NWS defended their actions by saying that to claim there was a hurricane coming ashore in New Jersey was scientifically inaccurate, and that they had an obligation to only present information to the public that was indeed scientifically accurate, or they would lose credibility …
The punchline is that the NWS relented and modified their criteria for issuing Hurricane Warnings so to include cases where dangerous post-tropical storms would continue to be treated as hurricanes for public warning purposes … the few times I’ve seen this done, the text of the warning included disclaimers that the storm wasn’t a hurricane, but was as dangerous as a hurricane … covering their ass as it were …
“In Wake of Sandy, NOAA Alters Hurricane Warning Policy” — Climate Central — April 4th, 2013
Violate just one law of nature and everything else said will be viewed in that light …
Yes - this opens us for dire and lasting consequences.
Look at the damage done by Gore (a non-scientist) presenting worst case analyses. Even that contributed to huge and lasting distrust of climate science. Even that level of indirection was a serious impact on our ability to make sound public policy decisions that affect the entire world.
Also, too many of the posts on this thread are really comments on public policy response to science, not on the science.
It’s not up to scientists to form public policy or emergency response procedures. Certainly science should inform those decisions, but what we want people to do when there could be winds of a certain strength is something that involves the capacity to move people, methods of communication, estimates of existing preparedness, various costs, etc.
That separation is important to maintain if we plan on learning how to trust science.
Thing is that one should never forget that a lot of the spite against Al Gore (who never claimed to be a scientist BTW) was also a creation of the interest groups that still to this day do not want to do anything with the issue.
And that was former sceptic Barry Bickmore, professor in the department of geological sciences at Brigham Young University, still Republican and conservative, but getting sick at the sight of Republicans in power embracing the idiot ball.
Very good points.
Yes, Gore became a lightening rod for conservative political opposition - opposition that continues to this day to have very little if anything to do with science.