The scholars showed their solidarity with the controversial activists. How objective should science be?
About 24 hours ago something unusual happened. Climate activists have blocked all roads to Praterstern. Yes, a lot was expected, after the Climate Labels have already announced that they will paralyze the streets of Vienna this week. What was extraordinary, however, was the support they received. And by about 40 scientists, including many well-known personalities, who stood behind activists on the ground and showed solidarity with them.
But scientists have assured the “press” several times that they are not enjoying it. For many, it was completely uncomfortable, “out of our comfort zone.” They themselves don’t think disruptive actions are particularly big, after all, you know how annoying it is to be stuck in traffic. However, they took to the streets. why? Because they felt that nothing else could help in view of the impending climate catastrophe. “It is sad that we resort to such actions in order to be heard,” says a TU professor.
One might ask whether the scientists’ actions were justified. Shouldn’t they remain neutral instead of siding with controversial climate activists? Shouldn’t science remain objective in order to be credible?
This question can be approached with a counter-question: How objective was it when virologists and health experts held press conferences alongside politicians to announce lockdowns and publicize the commitment to wearing masks? It was not questioned at that time. Instead, they were heard, appointed to task forces and committees.
That’s right, one could argue, because they are experts in their field. You know the facts – that is, what is necessary for objective consideration (!). There are also such experts in climatology. In Austria there are a lot of them, very famous at that. Why haven’t they heard enough?
“Total coffee aficionado. Travel buff. Music ninja. Bacon nerd. Beeraholic.”