Reader please note that the issues raised in this article, have been caricatured. So when it says that scientists can't do this or that, it should be read as most scientists... or in general, scientists .... Exceptions to a rule can always be found. The name Man is used to denote mankind. Also please note that this document is updated from time to time.

For suggestions and feedback, please e-mail the author. Read tips for printing for best results.
The whole document covers about 0.15 MB, 35 printed pages.

--Seafriends home--sitemap-- Revised: 20010816,20020904,20021220,20051103,20070412,20070725,20170617,

• less government: government expenditure is a burden to society. Governments upset the forces of supply and demand, the invisible hand.
• less taxes: taxes drain profits from businesses, making them less competitive. It is a distortion of the price mechanism. It prevents people from buying more. It stifles the economy.
• free enterprise: free enterprise solves all problems. Only rules restrict it from achieving optimal delivery.
• freemarket rule: the price mechanism is superior to rules and laws.
• less accountability: government corporations are no longer accountable to the public.

The freemarket mindset
The freemarket mindset has come with a few more attributes affecting, and indeed poisoning, rational thought. The assumptions listed below have been accepted widely as common wisdom, even though they are not at all based on any scientific evidence, and even proved wrong on many occasion!

• the new economic paradigm: it is necessary; there is no other way (TINO); we can't afford; there is no way back; the bottom line counts - has become faith.There must be a level playing field, unaffected by subsidies, minimum wages, etc.
• economic growth is essential: growth is caused by making labour and capital work together to produce new capital. There must be growth in populations and GDP. Without growth, the economy will spiral downward into depression.
• we can't afford: public works, superannuation, free medical care, free high quality schools, parks, etc. are slowing down progress, wealth and economic growth. We can no longer afford these.
• the user pays: resources can be allocated more efficiently if everyone is charged for what he uses. Why should I pay for schools when I have no children? Why should I pay for public transport when I drive a car? Why should I pay for the poor when they have the same chances as I have? Why should I pay for scientists?
• the market dictates: the market consists of consumers. Let them vote with their money.
• business knows better: business leaders are used to making decisions about resources, people and their lives. Let them do it, rather than the public service.
• the invisible hand rules: let the price mechanism rule. If people won't pay for it, then they don't want it (like taxes).
• lean, mean, high profit, short term outlook is best: evolution is based on this, so what's wrong? Failure is part of success.
• create a level playing field: take out all unreal distortions like laws and rules, subsidies, restrictions, because they interfere with the market mechanisms. They interfere with the vote of buyers.
• free markets are necessary: the economic ball-game is that of efficient delivery, so let the markets free, locally and internationally.
• global economy, global competition is necessary: why should we pay more for locally made goods, rather than importing cheap goods from other countries? Competition is healthy, even if products are produced by slave labour, or cause environmental damage in some other country, or make some people stinking rich.
• free flow of capital: since labour cannot flow freely across national boundaries, capital must be enabled to do so, even if that means lost jobs and industries.
• hands-off government: even government can be privatised: police, courts, prisons, etc.

When science funding is done according to the freemarket competitive mindset, the following undesirable situation is achieved (see also www.psa.org.nz):

• time fragmentation: multiple sources of short term research funding lead to the fragmentation of researcher's time and fragmented research that does not join up to become a whole.
• no long term research: funding for strategic long term research problems or directions is largely absent from the competitive funding model. Fundamental research misses out, and with it long-term opportunity.
• no say in decisions: there is little opportunity for scientists to contribute to science policy decision making. Decisions are often made by politically-driven fund managers who have no scientific minds.
• profitability matters more: measures of scientific institutions' performance are dominated by financial indicators (e.g. return on capital and equity, weighted average cost of capital) which do not make any estimate of the long-term social, economic and environmental benefits arising from fundamental research and a skilled, scientific workforce; and hence the funding system emphasises short-term profitability at the expense of fundamental long-term research.
• job uncertainty: contestability leads to career instability and time lost in moving to other institutions or countries. Time is also wasted in changing careers. Scientists cannot be creative where job uncertainty threatens.
• commercial sensitivity: whereas previously the sharing of knowledge and information was the norm, it is now jealously guarded as a commercial advantage over competitors. This does not serve either science or the public.

"The whole thing about competition is not that you are seeking to achieve perfect markets . . . but an excess and unfair market share. We try to build barriers, be it through advertising or creating a brand. That's what business is about." - Hugh Fletcher, director Fletcher Challenge, 1984, New Zealand.

Positive and negative qualities of the scientist:

+ high level, thorough investigation: beyond any doubt, scientists backed by reputable institutions and adequate resources, do high quality work in the tradition of the objective scientific method.
+ international communication and peer review: scientists communicate across national boundaries, and their results are published and read internationally, assuring the widest exposure, to invite imitation or rebuttal.
+ scientists are intelligent: only intelligent people make headway as scientists. They are eager to learn throughout their lifetimes, and in the course of it, amass a vast store of ready knowledge.
- not enough scientists: it is a complaint heard most often by scientists themselves. (See next point)
- not enough money: if only we had enough money and scientists, all problems of the world could be solved. However, society is limited by how much it can afford to spend on science.
- expensive, high overheads: scientists are expensive. They have high overheads, use expensive equipment and materials, require overseas trips to stay abreast, and so on.
- slow progress: the thoroughness of the scientific method tolerates no shortcuts, but it also increases costs, while ignoring that sometimes an approximate answer is all that is needed. Businessmen and politicians often need an 80/20 solution, with 80% accuracy, yet for 20% of the cost, but this is not scientific.
- no local presence or knowledge: problems arise where people do things to nature. These are typically not the places where one finds scientists, hence their lack of local knowledge. Often scientists move into a community, focusing on the problem, while ignoring to use local knowledge. In doing so, they can miss important information, or misrepresent their findings.
- poor continuity: scientists change place and interest quite frequently, thus suffering  poor continuity.
- can't act in uncertainty: scientists can't act in uncertainty. It is unscientific. Yet many environmental problems require us to do so.
- can't act on sudden environmental disasters: scientists need a justification for everything they do, for every expense. When a natural disaster strikes, they cannot rush in to investigate, because some budget will have to pay for them, and discretionary or disaster budgets are not usually available.
- can't blow whistles: scientists face high risks, sticking their necks out to blow whistles on the environment or their institutions, particularly where uncertainty remains. They could get ridiculed, lose grants and more. Usually they refrain from blowing whistles, or they form consensus groups, so that none can be singled out.
- should carve new paths but don't: for the same reasons as above, scientists run high risks (but also high rewards) when carving new paths. Peer review obstructs them further. Ridicule is their first reward.
- should doubt knowledge but believe: in the backs of their minds, scientists should doubt the knowledge they use. However, partly because of their education, and partly because they have to rely on the knowledge of others, they believe more than they should.
- scientists believe they are objective: but they have to make value judgements in selecting research topics, choice of research method, application of theory, and interpretation of facts and many more.
- competing for funds, rather than co-operating: in the modern world of contestable funding, scientists are pitched against one another, which makes it difficult for them to co-operate and to share their ideas.
- confidential results: when paid by industry, scientists are obliged to keep their results confidential in order not to undermine the commercial advantage so obtained. This goes straight against one of the most important principles of science, that of publishing results. Now that one government department 'purchases' research from another, even publicly paid-for research is held confidential. Most technological research results are not publicly available.
- user pays, user says: scientists are no longer to do free research, when they tender for grants or customers. It can also affect their impartiality, as has been shown with tobacco research and others.
- duplicating effort, not experiment: duplication of experiment is a worthy cause in science, since it may support or refute the work of others. As science becomes dearer, duplication of someone else's work becomes harder to justify. Where results are kept confidential, others need to duplicate the work, without duplicating experiment.
- have narrow field of expertise: scientists depend very much on the expertise of others to complete their thinking/opinion. Because science has become so involved, it is almost impossible to judge the work of others outside one's immediate area of interest. Yet a multi-disciplinary approach is nowadays almost always needed.
- believe their computer models: scientists trust so much in their computer models that they can be excused for thinking that there's something wrong with nature, in explaining the differences  :)
- seldom say that they were wrong: scientists usually don't publish or stress where they were wrong, thus undermining their credibility, while leaving others in the belief that their proclamations are still valid.
- are unaccountable: unlike engineers, but like politicians, scientists are not held accountable for what they say, or for their advice. They are protected by the maxim that what they say is the best we know collectively, and thus they can not individually be blamed for being wrong.
- are impractical: by far, most scientists have never lived in the real world of commerce, business and working for a living. They have never learnt to be practical, like working with uncertainty and imperfection while minimising costs. Scientists seem to ignore the 80/20 rule where most of the result can be achieved with minimal effort.
- like sniping from the rearguard: scientists condemn a publication as 'grossly inaccurate' for a few trivial mistakes. They condemn as 'unproved', the things they haven't thought about or even looked at.
- writing in jargon: scientists write (necessarily) in subject-related jargon, but in doing so, also make bad use of English language, like writing in nouns and verbs, while underutilising adverbs and adjectives. They find it difficult to write for the layman.

Like the scientist discussed above, the public has also qualities which deserve critical evaluation:

+ eyes everywhere: the public lives where the problems arise; indeed they may be the very cause of them.
+ local presence, local knowledge, historical knowledge: the local community has a wealth of traditional knowledge or 'anecdotal evidence'. They have often dealt with similar problems before. Sometimes they have developed a tradition of conservation in one kind or another.
+ good continuity: because the locals live where the problems are experienced, they provide good continuity, useful for scientific pursuits like monitoring.
+ cheap labour: whereas scientists are expensive, because of their high pay and overheads, the local community is often prepared to donate free time. They can help scientists after-hours or during their work.
+ untapped human resource: the public is largely an untapped resource for assisting scientists. When motivated, a large human resource can become available.
+ high diversity: among the public one finds a high diversity of talents, like educators, artists, writers, publishers, cinematographers, photographers, engineers and so on. These talents can be used in many different ways.
+ quick response: because many people work near the place where they live, they can respond quickly. Because they are free, no special budgets have to be assigned before coming into action.
+ co-operating and sharing, not competing: the public does not have an interest in the science of a case but in its solution. So they are not likely to compete with one another. Yet, conflicting interests may exist in the use of resources by stakeholders.
+ have an interest: the public has an active interest in the outcome of solutions to problems, and are often highly motivated.
+ can act in uncertainty: people are used to acting in uncertainty, simply by applying common sense. Businesses are used to manage in uncertainty, and to make decisions. Remember that random decisions are still right half the time.
+ can blow whistles: although the public has a stake in the solution of their problems, people can take political action and blow whistles much more easily than scientists.
- do low level investigation:  a serious handicap of using the public is that it can do only low-level research.
- need much education and hand holding: a great deal of education has to be done to reach adequate levels of knowledge and to maintain these.
- easily believe in myths and superstition: not being trained to think scientifically, the public can be fickle in its retention of knowledge and interpretation of events. It can be very susceptible to anti-propaganda and bad influences.

Seafriends has recognised this synergy, and this web site is testimony to the above philosophy. By providing the necessary education, it is hoped that the public can, of their own accord contribute to saving our environment and solving our problems, even without working directly alongside scientists.

The arguments toted by the brownlash movement offer opposing viewpoints, which are essentially these:

• there is good news about the environment, insufficiently published: True, because bad news enjoys more coverage than good news, but it can easily be overrated because irreversible environmental change happens so slowly that it doesn't attract press coverage either.
• population growth is economically beneficial: cigarette manufacturers once calculated that cigarettes are beneficial to the world's economy. By killing people early in life, the economy is spared their pension payments, which can now be used for more productive purposes. As populations grow, economies expand, but per capita prosperity may shrink. Economic growth can bring prosperity, but it has been shown that real income per capita has been declining since 1970. The problems of population growth in all cases far outweigh its advantages.
• overpopulation does not exist: The USA is essentially empty. Look at Holland, Bermuda, Monaco, Singapore, HongKong, Sao Paulo etc. They prove that the world can stand much higher densities. However, these nations can exist only because other places of the world are not overpopulated, providing food and ecosystem services they need. Holland, for example, uses 17x more space, outside its borders.
• We need more people in order to have more geniuses to solve our problems: It would be immoral to keep them from being born. Geniuses occur as a predictable percentage of any population. So it is reasoned, population growth will give us more geniuses and thus more prosperity. Well, far more criminals than geniuses are born too. Furthermore, geniuses need to be provided with opportunity.
• hunger is less, not more: food scarcity exists only regionally; food production is unlimited; the earth is capable of feeding 40 billion people. It is true that distribution of food is a problem. But agriculture has mounting, real problems, which can not be overcome by new technology like Genetic Engineering. The USA will stop becoming a grain exporter well within 20 years time. The amount of food produced per capita is declining.
• technology has saved us and will keep saving us. We have always relied on technological solutions, often at the expense of cheap oil. But in reality, technology is falling further and further behind, while the environment becomes degraded by its practices. The amount of fossil energy is not unlimited. There are also physical and environmental limits, like those of not ever being able to run a two-minute mile.
• natural resources are superabundant or infinite.  Resources exist for the benefit of those seeking private, short-term gain, rather than being public for the common good. All resources can be substituted for others. Because of the 'uniformity of energy/matter', resources can be found everywhere and in infinite amounts. Neo-classical economic theory has brought some irreconcilable fallacies in the thinking of economists, like this one. But economic exploitation is possible only where minerals are concentrated. The cost (and energy) of refining is disproportionately related to dilution of the resource.
• there is plenty of energy: if left to their own, energy industries can supply us with all that is necessary to power industrial civilisation far into the future. Overregulation stifles exploration. In practice, blackouts are now occurring everywhere in the world, where once energy could be relied upon. Energy suppliers are not interested in the reliability of supply, but in profit. If scarcity drives the price up, then so be it.
• resources are becoming more abundant, as one can tell from their declining prices. This is another fallacy inherited from neo-classical economics. The price paid does not reflect its value. Only exploration costs are paid, which have been going down due to technological improvements, marketing, transport, etc. Also external costs such as tax credits, subsidies, pollution and global warming, are not taken into account.
• extinction of species is natural. Going against it is unnatural. Only a small portion of the planet has been altered significantly. Yes, extinction is natural, but the rate of extinction experienced now, is not. The question is really: who wants to live in a world which no longer looks like Earth? About half of the terrestrial surface of Earth has been altered. Climate change, acid rain and change to the water cycle, change the rest.
• global warming, acid rain are no problem. There is no solid evidence (true). Global warming exists only in computer climate models (true). There is plenty of time to adjust - buy a bigger air conditioner, lighter dress, shirts. But humans can readily adapt; warm-blooded creatures too; cold-blooded creatures not. Forests and plants adapt too slowly and will perish or change entirely. The old specimens of long-lived species like many trees, will disappear.
• ozone depletion is a hoax. It existed before CFCs were used. CFCs are too heavy to rise into the stratosphere. However, some larger molecules are quite mobile. If not, the atmosphere would have been layered as follows: krypton, ozone, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, argon, oxygen, nitrogen, water vapour, methane, neon, helium, hydrogen. But the atmosphere mixes its gases quite well.
• volcanic hydrogen chloride is 50 times more than the entire CFC production. Mt Erebus alone does so. But HCl is water soluble, and rains out quickly, whereas CFCs are insoluble. CFCs act as catalysts, being destructive in very small quantities. No correlation of ozone hole and volcanoes or hydrochloric acid has been found.
• people can avoid UV radiation increases easily: by moving towards the equator, and by protecting themselves. True, but the environment can't. Because all forests are now surrounded by agricultural lands, trees can no longer seed themselves progressively further towards the poles. Neither can oceanic plankton escape UV, because it has to live close to the surface of the ocean.
• acid rain is only a minor problem.  True, the environment can absorb some. But organisms are sensitive to the alkalinity of their environment. Sulphuric and nitric acids, come as wet and dry deposit. 85% of Adirondac lakes have been acidified, seriously affecting their health. Many dead lakes now exist, that once were full of life.
• toxic substances risk and poisoning are highly exaggerated. without heavy use of pesticides, starvation would stalk the planet. Monocultures require pest control. Yes. However, pesticides don't work as well, because organisms adapt. Only a small percentage reaches its target; most is lost, affecting innocent species. Pesticides have proved to affect a large number of species, bad and good, and some affect humans even in very small quantities. Once thought beneficial, pesticides have come close to being a liability at high cost.
• too many chemicals have been overregulated. it is true that bureaucratic regulations have become draconian and stifling, aiming for 100% safety and security, where a lesser standard would be acceptable, certainly in some areas. Also people have become paranoid about threats they can neither see nor measure.
• infectious diseases eliminated & minimised. True, but: HIV is spreading rapidly, population density invites classic diseases; many people avoid vaccination; hospitals are rife with biocide-resistant infectious pathogens. Disease risk is proportional to population size and is critically related to population density and to the number of people without resistance (children). Other new diseases have appeared such as Creutzfeld-Jacobs (mad-cow), Ebola, West Nile, and others. The incidence of malaria is rising sharply again.
• all direct measures of human welfare have increased. Life expectancy, leisure time, purchasing power will increase indefinitely. The American dream? Life expectancy has increased world-wide, but leisure time has decreased, and so has purchasing power. People also live under more stress.
• environmental regulation is wrecking the economy; it is slowing down progress; denying people their pleasures, and the freedom of housing and movement. True to some extent. In the world of tomorrow we will be forced to travel less, waste less, live in smaller homes, have less freedom. But the environment will also become big business, providing employment to many.
• unhindered capitalism is good for the environment: just look at Russia. In the USA, environmentally friendly companies incur higher costs, and die by competition. The key to cleaning up our environment is unfettered free enterprise. False. History has proved time and again that capitalism cannot be left unchecked. Just remember the smoke stacks in all developed countries. Only by overarching regulation can all be forced to clean their acts.
• environmental regulation makes American industry less competitive. True, but world-wide demand for green products is rising; also the public's concern. Americans are rich enough to make the change; poor countries are not. Greening the Industry, Reduce Reuse Recycle, Total Quality Environmental Management and environmental compliance are becoming competitive issues. Monsanto's business depends on well functioning ecosystems and societies, so it changed. Investors now choose green companies.
• with the collapse of Marxism, environmentalism has become the new refuge of socialist thinking. To think environment, is to think for the public good, and if this is called Marxism, then all environmentalists are Marxists. Join now!

• challenging thought: discussion is healthy.
• just challenging conventional thinking: brownlash is just honest criticism of conventional scientific thinking, but scientists often overreact or don't react at all (true).
• propaganda: the methods to sway people are used and abused extensively by businesses, politicians and more.
• sounds more logical and acceptable and simple: half-truths are easier to understand; take a shorter time to broadcast.
• most people do not understand knowledge: rational and logical thinking is unnatural.
• citing other writers: creates the impression that everyone agrees.
• exploiting dissent between scientists: the slightest disagreement between scientists is explained as doubt about the whole.
• entraining insufficiently knowledgeable scientists for their comments & viewpoints: as long as a scientist or PhD is quoted, it sounds as if it represents the scientific viewpoint.
• entraining celebrities for their viewpoints: people always listen to what celebrities say, and these are easily bribable.
• no need to lie: but only ignore evidence to the contrary, or omit it from publication, or quote only who agree.
• easily accepted lies are widely quoted and accepted as fact.
• exaggerating unprovable claims: so many jobs lost, houses not built, dollars GNP, export opportunities, loss of competitiveness, foreign relations, security, etc.
• undercover institutes have environmentally friendly names: Wise Use movement, National Wetland Coalition, Friends of Eagle Mountain, The Sahara Club, the Alliance for Environment and Resources, etc.
• human nature:
• most people believe and/or are religious: a religious or spiritual angle sways many people.
• people seek certainty: they are reluctant to accept probability or uncertainty.
• most people are self-centred: they are profit-seeking, right-winged. The American Dream is to get rich quick.
• people still hanker back for the cowboy times when there were no rules: the frontier mentality is still rife.
• people are mostly conservative and don't want to change their way of life: change can be painful and uncertain.
• defend the status-quo: most people do not like change. They are conservative.
• don't like bad news: bad news is unsettling. People don't like to change.
• the smallest creatures are the most important: the little things that run the world (E O Wilson), are most worthy of saving because they are most important. But people dislike their kind (bacteria).
• media and journalists: our news institutions have serious problems.
• most media are owned by those benefited by brown-lashing: those who have the most, have the most fear.
• journalists and newspapers like controversy: any dissenting voice gets disproportional coverage.
• journalists don't have time and resources to dig deeper: they just report other people's opinions.
• newspapers skimp on background research in order to cut costs, employing young reporters rather than experienced ones, while not allowing enough time to do a decent job. Reporting 'style' has become more important than content; 'entertaining' more than informing.
• journalists must write more stories in less time: bombarded by news stories, and pressed to produce, journalists have been forced to fill column-centimetres.
• news is subject to fads, hype and public opinion: often reporters 'make' news by focusing on the story of the day, amplifying it and presenting it in all the media at the same time. The story then creates hype and momentum.
• readers are tired of bad news and scary stories and being held responsible for things.
• editors want 'balanced' coverage: giving equal time to protagonists and antagonists, right or wrong.
• newspapers don't want to sound 'educational': but prefer to be 'entertaining'.
• journalists use a computer database (Nexus?) to look up everything that has been said on any subject, or by any person, so rumours repeat themselves and myths are born. Rumours and false statements cannot be erased from the database. False statements are recorded for history as faithfully as are true ones. If enough people are wrong, the issues will be remembered wrong, and future generations will not be able to learn from them.
• bribes: who pays, says.
• paying (consulting) any contrarian scientist who sounds right for 'sound science' and 'balanced view'. Paying such people to do the rounds as after-dinner speakers at meetings of influential people. They talk the right language, sounding familiar, while taking away anxiety. They bring good news.
• highly funded: the anti-environmental movement is well funded, well lobbied for; represents invested business interests, and promotes 'less taxes',  'deregulation' and 'necessary budget cutting' to cut environmental movements down. However, scientists are also paid, by Government.
• silent scientists: why are scientists silent?
• scientists are easily attacked by half-truths: to contradict these, costs too much time.
• science itself consists of doubting the truth, so criticising it is a 'scientific' process.
• scientists don't defend themselves well: they won't get involved with politics and won't fight untruths. They are not trained in speaking publicly.
• scientists don't recognise the power of propaganda, or its ingredients. They are essentially enshrined within protective institutions and organisations, which shelter them from the winds of the real world. They live in their own arcane world, being perhaps a little naive. They often take the bait, as intended.
• scientists go into too much detail, focusing on the problem rather than how it relates to people; not speculating on results which are what we are interested in; not giving certainty to simplify the issues; not caricaturing to make the issues clear. Caricatures are scientifically imprecise.
• (un)objectivity: scientists consciously or unconsciously make value judgements in selecting research topics, choice of research method, application of theory, and interpretation of facts. It should make them doubt their own work. This renders honest scientists vulnerable.
• scientists are vulnerable: scientists do not dare speak out because it is often not considered scientific by their colleagues. They are bound by institutional contracts which essentially take their voices away because it is the Public Relations Department's task. Scientists fear losing their jobs.
• scientists know too little: although very specialised in their own field, scientists feel unqualified to speak where other fields of science are involved, such as is necessary in the bigger picture. It essentially means that they know too little of what goes on outside their specialisation.

As one can see, the brownlash movement is just one of the orchestrated movements of which there are many in society, using the well-known techniques of propaganda and division. So how could society improve the quality of information necessary to reach well-founded, often painful decisions for our common future? Here are some suggestions.

• the media must be made more aware of the unequal battle and be more considerate to scientific viewpoints.
• scientists must be trained in communicating their ideas, being more to the point (the need of the reporter).
• scientists must make their knowledge readily available in a form that is easily understood (educational resource).
• scientists should immediately react to misinformation by writing letters to the editors, writing in their local papers.
• scientists should recognise that public outreach is part of good science, and is necessary, also to present good role models.
• scientists should learn how to work with multiple disciplines and the public.
• scientists must involve themselves with school curricula and update these with new knowledge resources.
• scientist should hold public lectures to make people more aware.
• prepare school students better in facts and the techniques of propaganda, so they will be aware of manipulation.

Ehrlich, Paul R and Anne H (1996): Betrayal of Science & Reason; how anti-environmental rhetoric threatens our future. Shearwater Books.
Brown, J A C: Techniques of persuasion, from propaganda to brainwashing. 1963. Penguin Books.

How to deal with the media:

• start with a ten second sound bite which catches attention; a newspaper headline.
• top down pyramid writing. Important conclusions first, then the next level of importance. Details last.
• use analogies, metaphors. These are very powerful in guiding the reader's mind. They can bring gutfeeling into the arguments. Many people think instinctively, emotionally.
• use simple language: aim at the level of an eleven year old.If the cleaning lady can't understand you, you don't know what you are talking about. (Ernest Rutherford). Use caricatures.
• use some propaganda techniques: people are used to these. Be enthusiastic, passionate about what you say.
• avoid scenarios because these can be seen as predictions, promising certainty where none was intended.
• avoid doom saying because the public doesn't like this. Also give a positive way out. Give hope.
• make clear distinctions between what is optimal (best), practical and what is policy advice (values).
• have your press release reviewed by peers and uninformed friends, before going public.