Three climate researchers nature argue that the objectivity of climate science is problematic because it hinders their political advocacy, which they believe is too important to deny. [emphasis, links added]
Therefore, the authors argue that the value of objectivity in scientific research should be reconsidered.
“The public watches as national and local governments declare climate emergencies while continuing to issue new licenses for fossil fuel extraction, seemingly ignoring the increasingly urgent scientific message that this will cause the world to warm more than 1.5°C by 2030 (or even earlier), will exceed pre-industrial levels,” the researchers explained.
While researchers equate refusing to stop fossil fuel production to ignoring science, Energy experts believe these policies will lead to huge economic problems and widespread poverty.
author of the book nature The op-ed appears unaware of or unconcerned with the impact of such policies, arguing It’s unfair to expect climate researchers not to get emotional when governments don’t adopt these policies.
“Scientists who express their feelings and concerns about climate change are often not encouraged by their colleagues but are expected to continue without acknowledging or communicating that the actions needed to ensure a livable and sustainable future remain insufficient,” the authors note.
By almost every metric—including life expectancy, wealth, and deaths from natural disasters—humanity is doing better than ever before. despite this, The submitters argued that their concerns were based on indisputable facts.
Climate advocacy and direct reporting
Dr. Matt Velicki, a former assistant professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Alabama, expressed doubts about the authors’ assertion that their colleagues opposed their climate advocacy.
Velitsky left academia largely because, he said, His views contradicted the climate crisis narrative and met with hostility from university administrators.
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, She also questioned what she called “climate hysteria” tells a similar story about her choice to leave academia and pursue a career in the private sector.
“I’ve never seen anyone lose their job or stock up on the internet because they were active on climate issues. But I’ve seen it happen to a lot of brilliant scientists who asked the simplest of questions. I think that’s Classic projection,” Velitsky told Just news.
Velitsky said he was shocked when he read the article nature piece. He said it's okay for researchers to have feelings. It's part of being human.
But separating feelings from research is fundamental to the fundamental principles of sciencehe said. This is how to keep research free from bias, which is one of the things reviewers look for during the peer review process.
“this nature The article essentially tells scientists Data no longer matters. We now know the answer. It's exciting now,” Velitsky said.
conflict of interest
The lines between climate research and political advocacy are increasingly blurring, causing concern among other researchers. The influential and prestigious National Academy of Sciences recently established a committee to review and further study “attribution science.”
Attribution science is used to determine how much greenhouse gas emissions contribute to specific weather events. Its approach is designed to help bring lawsuits against large emitters, primarily oil companies.
There are dozens of such lawsuits filed by anti-fossil fuel groups and local governments. Critics argue the aim is to drive the energy transition through the courts, rather than legislative bodies where policymakers must contend with voters.
Sponsors of the NAS committee include Robert Litterman, a board member of the Bezos Earth Foundation and Climate Center, a climate advocacy group that founded World Weather Attribution (WWA).
WWA's purpose is to link climate change to individual weather events to support climate litigation. Both WWA and the Commission are funded by the Bezos Earth Fund.
In the “Honest Brokers” substack, Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., a retired environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, noted that the committee also includes Delta Merner, who directs the USC Center for Climate Litigation Science. people.
Its mission is also Help advance climate litigation.
Pilk wrote that the justice system is in dire need of expertise, and there is nothing wrong with advocacy groups organizing experts or conducting scientific research to support lawsuits.
However, he believes that It would be inappropriate for these legal advocates to serve on the NAS Research Committee, which evaluates and legitimizes the information they produce in support of litigation in which these advocates are involved.
“The failure of scientific integrity is profound, obvious, and completely public,” Pielke wrote.
lose trust
Scientists who defend their emotion research seem to think their fears are not legitimately controversial, but other scientists disagree.
author of the book nature column tells The Guardian They were “ridiculed and ridiculed” for speaking out about their fears.
They claim “some scientists” ridiculed them for participating in a study guardian investigation Climate scientists talk about their mental health problems, such as depression, which they blame on climate change.
They did not provide any details about who the scientists were, what exactly was said to them, or how the criticism was conveyed. But they argued their “strong emotions” were “crucial” to their climate change research.
one of the nature Columnist Dr. Lisa Schipper from the University of Bonn told guardian That She “has no choice now to remain calm about climate change research” because of the “tragic destruction of the planet.”
She said things that scare her include heat wave deaths, flooding that leaves people homeless and declining polar bear populations.
As Pielke points out in a 2022 Substack article, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of the world's leading climate researchers, has made clear There is no confidence in the overall trend of flooding.
Pierke explains that this also means The IPCC does not believe that the frequency or intensity of flood events can be attributed to climate change. Likewise, normalized flood losses as a share of GDP in the United States have declined significantly since 1940.
Death tolls from heat waves are rising, and we have reason to worry. However, due to rising temperatures, Fewer people are dying from cold events, which are far more harmful than heat.
“Normalization of Prejudice”
Schipper's assertion that polar bear numbers are declining is not supported by data.
According to the 2021 status report of the International Union for Conservation of Nature/Commission on Species Survival Commission Polar Bear Specialist Group, Since 1960, the polar bear population has increased by 40%.
A 2018 study estimated Since 1950, the number of polar bears has increased nearly fourfold.
In his “irrational fearIn Substack, Wielicki argues that the “normalization of bias” in science, as advocated in nature and guardian Articles are eroding public trust in science.
Popular photo on Unsplash by Mika Baumeister
Read the break from Just The News
