The nuance of "be pragmatic"...

1) Does "be pragmatic" mean "be practical even if at the price of distorting the science of the field (to cater for politicians/political policies)"?

2) Does "mitigation scenarios that explore policy options" mean "mitigation conceptions that inquire into policy options"?

Context:

Political weather
Climate researchers who advise policy-makers feel that they have two options: be pragmatic or be ignored. They either distance themselves from the policy process by declaring that it is no longer possible to stay within a 2 °C-compatible carbon budget, or they suggest practical ways to dodge carbon-budget constraints3.

Many advisers are choosing pragmatism. This can lead to paradoxical positions, as exemplified by shifting assumptions in climate economics over the past few years.

Each year, mitigation scenarios that explore policy options for transforming the global economy are more optimistic4 — and less plausible. Advisers once assumed that the global emissions peak would have to be reached before 2020 and that annual emissions-reduction rates of more than 3% were not feasible. Those assumptions keep changing.

http://www.nature.com/news/policy-climate-advisers-must-maintain-integrity-1.17468

Yeah, with the nuance of discovering something you didn't expect or predict, I'd say. Nuances are sometimes hard to pin down and even native speakers may disagree sometimes.