I wrote recently about scientists as advocates, using their positions of knowledge and authority to promote political and societal views. We can never have enough technical knowledge to inform important societal debates, but there are many other important things to consider.
In other words, good science informs important societal debates, as do other inputs including energy security, economics, policy, and social and cultural values. So, no scientist – or physician, or other professional expert – is in a position to dictate important policy based solely on their expert knowledge, particularly when they communicate their expertise framed by specific political views.
As an example, I recently discussed Katherine Hayhoe, a well-respected atmospheric physicist who feels her knowledge of climate analysis qualifies her to recommend action on “clean energy” and “sustainable food and water” (Should scientists be advocates? ). No consideration for energy resources, energy security, business or economics – just climate. She appears not to understand that climate science can inform – but does not dictate – action on these issues.
As well, many non-scientists are happy to quote “the science” when arguing their pet political causes – usually based on their reading of isolated snippets of scientific information on social media or in mainstream media (Do you ‘believe the science’? How about starting with understanding the science? ).
Regardless of who is referencing science and for what cause, the most common misuse of scientific findings is to quote (and perhaps spin) only selected bits that support the cause one in trying to promote – a practice commonly known as “cherry-picking”.
Sometimes this is done deliberately, and sometimes the advocate simply does not understand the scientific nuances of the reports being referenced.
Example 1 – Selective climate science
Roger Pielke Jr., in his popular Substack “The Honest Broker” has extensively documented cherry-picking and other misuse of scientific research and data around climate, usually in efforts to support the “climate crisis” narrative. For example, a great deal of angst about negative climate effects has been projected using studies that focus exclusively on one particular climate model scenario: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario, which assumes rapidly growing greenhouse gas emissions far into the future.
While the IPCC at one point referenced RCP 8.5 as “business as usual”, it has been clearly demonstrated to be unrealistic and extreme, and is not credible in supporting estimates of future climate change or related events (Climate Science is About to Make a Huge Mistake). But using RCP 8.5 can yield very dramatic and terrifying projections – and so it continues to be used by some promoting the climate-crisis narrative.
Dr. Pielke recently highlighted several extreme examples of misuse or simple fabrication of scientific information within the climate science community to back specific viewpoints – and identified the United Nations as one of the chief offenders (Climate Misinformation from the United Nations). It is rather disconcerting that an agency that should be a beacon of reason and good information is instead a systematic creator of misinformation based on cherry-picking and misinterpretation. This is the sad reality.
Example 2 – Misusing resource estimates
Kenneth Green of the Fraser Institute recently wrote a report titled “Nova Scotia and New Brunswick sitting on billions of dollars in undeveloped shale gas potential“.
Dr. Green has written many insightful commentaries, but he missed the mark this time because he inaccurately referenced a key report by the Canadian Energy Research Institute titled “Economic Potential of Onshore Oil and Gas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia“. Green cherry-picked gas resource numbers calculated in the CERI report to promote the idea that there are huge economic reserves of natural gas in shale and low-permeability sandstone reservoirs in Canada’s Maritime provinces – but that have not been developed because federal and provincial regulators have blocked exploration drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
Having worked these reservoirs myself, and being a co-author of the 2014 Report of the Nova Scotia Independent Review Panel on Hydraulic Fracturing, I can see that Green has misinterpreted the resource report.
How? Basically, CERI says that there is probably a lot of gas deep underground in shale reservoirs. But only the most rudimentary work (including some of my own) has been done to evaluate these reservoirs – a few wells, a little seismic, some regional studies. Tens to hundreds of millions of dollars would need to be spent to establish whether we could ever get that gas out of the ground economically. And those are risk dollars – you could spend them and get nothing in return. Or you might establish that there are resources that could be developed – in which case you could spend tens of millions more to actually do the development.
So, Green is promoting the story that a rich natural gas bonanza in the Maritimes is being thwarted by anti-industry regulation. But there is no certainty that any economic resource exists – he has misused the report to produce an incorrect headline and story.
It is telling that no company has felt strongly enough about the potential in the last 10 years to push back on the regulations – and if the hydraulic fracturing bans are lifted, it will be interesting to see whether anybody wants to spend the money to test the resource.
Example 3 – Doing it right
Geoscience BC is a not-for-profit organization sponsoring independent geoscience research informing the Canadian province of British Columbia’s natural resource decisions. In two recent reports, GBC provided excellent examples of conducting scientific investigations and applying the findings in a scientific and ethical fashion. Both projects were conducted with the goal of defining subsurface carbon-storage resources to sequester carbon-dioxide emissions from a variety of small to moderate-sized emitters across the province.
The first report, Northeast BC Geological Carbon Capture and Storage Atlas, mapped out an extensive network of emitters, many connected to oil and gas industry activities in the northeastern corner of the province. Building on decades of geological studies and extensive subsurface databases, the atlas defined substantial geological carbon-storage potential in reservoirs close to the emitters. Future carbon capture and storage operators will be able to use the report to optimize location and scope of sequestration projects. So, mission accomplished, and Geoscience BC can tell the project sponsors that they got their money’s worth.
A second report, Central Interior Geological Carbon Storage Assessment , undertook a similar exercise in central British Columbia, where there is a substantial number of emitters but very little oil and gas or other subsurface resource development (full disclosure – I am the principal author of the report). The results were much different, showing very little potential for subsurface carbon storage, and recommending that no further work be undertaken. Even though sponsors may have been motivated to show storage potential and to promote carbon-storage projects, scientific analysis demonstrated that such projects could not work. The report reflected the science accurately and professionally – no cherry-picking here!
Good science means ALL of the science – reported accurately
Real science is hard – that is why professional scientists spend so much time in education and research. It is challenging not only to design and execute scientific investigations, but to interpret them and use those interpretations accurately, fully, and honestly.
So, remember – every time somebody quotes “the science”, examine what they are saying and think really hard about whether they are using scientific results fully, accurately, and in context – because, very often, they are not.
(Brad Hayes – BIG Media Ltd. 2025)
