"That's the kind of backdrop for me in terms of thinking about science, is to think about the risks of rejecting science that's true versus the risks of accepting science that's false. And I argue that in our current world, with the threat of climate change bearing down upon us, the risk of ignoring what scientists are telling us is very, very grave indeed." - Naomi Oreskes
This week on Living Lab Radio:
- Union of Concerned Scientists policy analyst Genna Reed argues that a proposed new EPA rule, ostensibly aimed at making the science underlying regulations more transparent, would actually just cut important public health research out of the process.
- Nicole Sintov of The Ohio State University says men and women describe interactions around setting the thermostat very differently, and that has ramifications for energy use.
- UPenn’s David Rolnick details the many ways artificial intelligence could help address climate change, but cautions the technology isn’t a silver bullet and won’t replace human decision-makers.
- Science historian Naomi Oreskes of Harvard University shares highlights from her new book Why Trust Science? Note: it says “science,” not “scientists” … and Oreskes sees an important distinction.
