We have arrived at full immersion in the political season. From now until election day and likely weeks beyond, political rhetoric, which has become dangerously incendiary, will flourish. And the public continues to be exposed to excessive hyperbole, distortions, and omissions of facts.

Such exposure has come to be expected in the world of politics. But unfortunately, political speech tactics have also crept into the dissemination of scientific information to the public.

Examples of political speech tactics applied to science abound. These stratagems that twist the truth include: the exclusion of critical information needed to fully understand the intricacy of a scientific study; cherry-picking data to conform to a predetermined conclusion; extrapolating conclusions based on extremely limited data to substantiate dubious claims; appealing to emotions to promote acceptance of a favored result; and story-telling where the story is more fiction than fact thereby perpetuating a false narrative.

The communication of authentic science must supersede these crass political ploys that distort reality.

Authentic science consists of theory and practice tied to integrity and humility. And observation, hypothesis, and testing are among the components of objective investigations that lead to dependable discoveries.

The challenge to deliver unvarnished scientific information to the public to improve chances for nonpartisan conclusions is huge, but necessary. Scientific results that are often overly simplified are typically quite nuanced. Experience from my own specialty within atmospheric science — air-pollution meteorology — provides many pertinent examples.

Throughout my 40-plus years of field work, consulting, and education on the dispersion of air pollutants, I witnessed numerous occasions where the public was coerced by superficial information.

At one public meeting when I was delivering findings from my dispassionate air-quality analysis of a controversial industrial operation that garnered national attention, activists were armed with rudimentary distortions. The activists used their blather to stir public opposition to the operation in the form of energetic protests. One protest, that occurred the day after the public meeting, even led to a spot on a CBS 60 Minutes episode.

In spite of all the hoopla, the plans for the facility were thoroughly reviewed and approved and granted government construction and operating permits. The facility has been in business for decades without a serious incident.

Other meetings in which I participated consisted of audiences understandably, but often unnecessarily, anxious about projects involving rehabilitation of abandoned properties, cleanup of a nuclear materials site, hazardous waste incineration, cement kiln use of discarded tires for fuel, extensive public building repairs, and the like.

In nearly every case, if the activity was conducted as specified in the approved permit application, the community air quality impact would be quite small, even to the point of being difficult to measure in the atmosphere in some cases.

Regardless, a credulous public can be primed for over-reaction not just by activists pushing political rhetoric but by government officials as well.

One example of a particularly egregious pronouncement came from a US Environmental Protection Agency official claiming that one molecule of an airborne cancer-causing chemical could cause cancer. Although that cause and effect is theoretically possible, unnecessary worry can actually contribute substantially to poor health.

There certainly is cause for concern when operations go awry during catastrophic industrial accidents or in train derailments like the one that happened in East Palestine, Ohio, for instance. Here again, my experience with such incidents shows that political rhetoric can be counter-productive to providing the help impacted residents require.

Bottom line, whether from routine industrial operations or catastrophes, carefully crafted language is exceptionally important to express complex technical information in simple understandable terms while still being true to the science. Unfortunately, deception abounds from politicized science that is frequently broadcast to the unsuspecting public, and not just during an overheated election season.

Anthony J. Sadar is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and adjunct associate professor of science at Geneva College, Beaver Falls, PA.  He is co-author of Environmental Risk Communication: Principles and Practices for Industry (CRC Press).

This piece originally appeared at WashingtonTimes.com and has been republished here with permission.