Climate scientists say the lines between science and propaganda are blurring and bias is being normalized

Three climate researchers appeared on the pages of the magazine Nature argue that objectivity in climate science is problematic because it interferes with their political advocacy, which they believe is too important to deny. Therefore, the values ​​of objectivity in scientific research, the authors argue, must be rethought.

“The public watched as national and subnational governments declared a climate emergency while continuing to issue new permits for fossil fuel extraction, seemingly ignoring increasingly urgent scientific reports that this was pushing the world into a 1.5° warming zone C. will exceed pre-industrial levels by 2030, if not earlier,” the researchers explain.

While researchers equate failure to stop fossil fuel production with ignoring science, energy experts say such policies will lead to huge economic problems and widespread poverty. Authors Nature The authors of the articles, apparently unaware or unconcerned about the consequences of such policies, argue that it is unfair to expect climate researchers to remain emotionless when governments do not adopt these policies.

“Scientists who express their feelings and concerns about climate change are often not supported by their colleagues and are instead expected to continue their work without acknowledging or communicating the continued inadequacy of the actions needed to ensure a suitable for life and a sustainable future,” say the authors.

By almost every measure, including life expectancy, wealth and mortality from natural disasters, humanity is doing better than ever. Despite this, the authors seem to believe that their concerns are based on indisputable facts.

Climate propaganda versus direct reporting

Dr. Matt Velisky, a former assistant professor of geological sciences at the University of Alabama, questioned the authors’ claim that their colleagues object to their climate advocacy. Wielicki left academia largely because he said his views, which ran counter to the climate crisis, were met with hostility from the university administration. Climate scientist Dr Judith Currie, who also questions what she calls “climate hysteria”, tells a similar story about her decision to leave academia and pursue a career in the private sector.

“I have never seen anyone lose ground or be attacked online because of their climate activism. But I have seen this happen to many eminent scientists when they had the simplest questions. I think it’s a classic projection,” Velitsky said. Just news.

Velitsky said he was shocked when he read Nature piece. He said it was normal for researchers to have feelings. It’s part of being human. But separating feelings and research is fundamental to the fundamental principles of science, he said. This is how research is protected from bias, and during peer review, reviewers look out for bias.

” Nature Essentially, the article tells scientists that data is no longer important. Now we know the answer. Now it evokes emotions,” Velitsky said.

Conflicts of interest

The blurring of lines between climate research and political advocacy is becoming increasingly common and is causing concern among other researchers. The very influential and prestigious US National Academy of Sciences recently established a committee to study and further research the “science of attribution.”

Attribution science is used to determine how much greenhouse gas emissions contributed to specific weather events. His methodologies were developed to assist in litigation against large emitters, primarily oil companies. There are dozens of such lawsuits filed by anti-fossil fuel groups and local governments that critics say are aimed at pushing the energy transition through the courts rather than through legislatures, where politicians would have to contend with voters.

The NAS committee is sponsored by the Bezos Earth Fund and Robert Litterman, who sits on the board of Climate Central, the climate advocacy group that founded World Weather Attribution (WWA). The goal of WWA is to link climate change to specific weather events in support of climate change-related lawsuits. Both WWA and the committee are funded by the Bezos Earth Fund.

In his report, “The Honest Broker,” Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., a former professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, notes that the committee also includes Delta Moerner, who heads the USC Research Center on Climate Litigation. in the Union of Concerned Scientists. Its mission is also to help advance climate litigation.

Pielke writes that the judicial system is in dire need of expert knowledge, and there is nothing wrong with advocacy groups organizing experts or conducting scientific research to support legal proceedings. However, he argues, it is inappropriate for such attorneys to serve on the NAS research committee that evaluates and legitimizes the information they provide in support of litigation in which these attorneys participate.

“The lack of scientific integrity here is deep, obvious, and completely obvious,” Pielke writes.

Loss of trust

Scientists defending their research on emotions seem to believe that their concerns are not legitimately challenged, but other scientists disagree.

Authors Nature the article says Guardian that they were “ridiculed and gaslighted” for speaking out about their fears. They claimed that “some scientists” ridiculed them for participating in the experiment. Guardian survey of climate scientists talking about their mental health problems, such as depression, which they blame on climate change. They do not provide any details about who these scientists are, what exactly was said to them, or how these criticisms were conveyed. But they defend their “strong emotions” as “vital” to their climate change research.

One of Nature The authors of the article, Dr. Lisa Schipper from the University of Bonn, said Guardian that because of the “sad destruction of the planet” she has no “choice to be dispassionate about climate change research.”

She said some of the things that scare her include people losing their lives due to the heat, people becoming homeless due to floods and the decline in the polar bear population. As Pielke noted in a 2022 Substack article, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a consortium of the world’s leading climate researchers, makes clear that it doesn’t trust overall flood trends. This also means, Pielke explains, that the IPCC is not confident that the frequency or extent of flooding can be linked to climate change. Likewise, normalized flood damage in the United States as a share of GDP has declined significantly since 1940.

Deaths from heat waves are rising and there is cause for concern. However, as temperatures rise, fewer people are dying from cold, which is a much worse killer than heat.

“Normalize offset”

Schipper’s claim that polar bear populations are declining is not supported by data. Polar bear populations have increased by 40% since 1960, according to a 2021 report from the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Polar Bear Specialist Group. A 2018 study estimated that the polar bear population has nearly quadrupled. since 1950.

On his “Irrational fearSubstack, Velitsky argues that the “normalization of bias” in science promoted in Nature And Guardian articles undermine public trust in science.

“This shift away from objectivity in climate science, supported by major journals, has the potential to completely undermine public trust in scientific institutions. It’s time to admit that what’s going on here is not science; this is faith. Climate science becomes a doctrine in which questions are taboo and faith-based declarations replace evidence-based research. And when we allow science to become faith, we give up everything that has made it the driving force of human progress. This is not only dangerous for science; this is dangerous for society,” Velitsky wrote.