Patrick Brown of the Breakthrough Institute has written an excellent article: The Social Feedback Loops That Constrain Climate Science
If researchers were perfectly dispassionate reasoners with no motivations other than truth-seeking, their published papers could be taken as a direct, objective view into reality. But as I argued not long ago in an essay in The Free Press, that idealized notion of science is a fantasy. Stemming from a frustration that I felt about not being able to take high-impact climate science at face value, I decided to call out what I see as one problem: The highest-profile research is heavily influenced by cultural forces and career incentives that are not necessarily aligned with the dispassionate pursuit of truth.
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-20-spring-2024/the-social-feedback-loops-that-constrain-climate-science
In the realm of climate science, the focus is often on the environmental feedback loops that intensify global warming. However, the social feedback loops influencing the creation and dissemination of climate science are equally potent and far less scrutinized. These social mechanisms significantly shape the research landscape, often prioritizing narratives that align with certain political and social agendas over a balanced and comprehensive understanding of climate issues.
The Allure of High-Impact Publications and Their Consequences
Brown discusses how research, fundamentally a social endeavor, relies on communication through publications in peer-reviewed journals. The prestige associated with journals like Nature and Science significantly influences the research they choose to publish. These journals, acting as gatekeepers, preferentially select studies that support prevailing narratives, such as the imperative of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, as outlined in the Paris Agreement.
This selection bias is not without consequence. It subtly coerces researchers into framing their studies in ways that are likely to be viewed favorably by high-impact journals, often at the expense of a more nuanced or comprehensive approach. For instance, studies might focus on how climate change negatively impacts an environmental phenomenon while neglecting other significant factors. This methodological tunnel vision can lead to a distorted portrayal of climate science in the public sphere.
The article elaborates on this issue, stating:
“Framing research in a way that at least directionally supports the predominant narrative makes the path to a high-impact publication much less treacherous… rather than ask, ‘What is the magnitude of the influence of climate change on the phenomena I am studying relative to all other influences?’ it is more prudent to ask, ‘How does climate change negatively impact the phenomena I am studying?'”
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-20-spring-2024/the-social-feedback-loops-that-constrain-climate-science
The Economic Costs of Climate Policies: An Overlooked Narrative
Brown notes that one of the most glaring omissions in current climate science literature is a balanced discussion on the economic impacts of climate policies. High-profile journals frequently publish papers that discuss the benefits of stringent climate policies without a corresponding analysis of the costs. For example, a paper might highlight the economic savings from adhering to the 1.5°C limit without considering the substantial costs of such rapid decarbonization.
This lack of balanced analysis could potentially mislead policymakers and the public about the true costs and benefits of climate policies. Research that does attempt to present a more balanced view often finds it difficult to gain traction in high-impact journals, likely because it challenges the prevailing narrative.
The article touches on this issue as well, explaining:
“Our study showed that when costs were considered alongside benefits, the conclusion of the benefit-only analysis was overturned: the Paris Agreement targets would impose net harm on the world economy through 2100… It was the finding of the study, rather than the topic, that was unwelcome.”
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-20-spring-2024/the-social-feedback-loops-that-constrain-climate-science
The Role of Political and Editorial Bias in Shaping Climate Science
Editors and journal policies significantly influence the kind of research that is published. High-profile journals not only reflect but also shape scientific discourse, pushing a narrative that aligns with certain political goals. For instance, endorsements by journal leadership of political figures and policies clearly signal an alignment with specific policy agendas, such as those encapsulated in the Paris Agreement.
This alignment raises questions about the purity of scientific inquiry within these publications. When journals overtly associate with political agendas, they risk compromising their objectivity and the trust of the scientific community and the public.
The article critically notes:
Leadership at Nature and Science have made it clear that they endorse the political goals of the Paris Agreement — to rapidly transition the world’s energy and agricultural economies so that global warming remains below 1.5°C (or at most 2°C) above preindustrial levels.
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-20-spring-2024/the-social-feedback-loops-that-constrain-climate-science
…
Nature as an institution officially endorsed Joe Biden in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, citing, among other reasons, his policies in support of the Paris Agreement. Facing some pushback on their explicit embrace of politics, Nature subsequently doubled down on their political statements. The current editor-in-chief of Science, Holden Thorpe, has defended the idea of scientific journals endorsing policies and politicians — implying that the authority of science subsumes the entirety of the climate problem all the way through to the amount of power that the government should yield in dictating a solution.
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-20-spring-2024/the-social-feedback-loops-that-constrain-climate-science
Breaking the Feedback Loop: Proposals for a More Equitable Scientific Discourse
Brown offers potential solutions, such as, to counteract the bias introduced by social feedback loops, several structural changes are necessary. One approach could be to alter the publication process to focus more on the research question and methodology rather than the results. This could help mitigate the publication bias where only results that fit the predominant narrative are favored.
Additionally, increasing transparency in the peer review and editorial decision-making process could help reveal any biases in the publication process. Publishing peer reviews and editorial decision letters, even for rejected manuscripts, could foster a more open and equitable scientific dialogue.
Conclusion
The social dynamics within the climate science community significantly impact the research agenda and the resulting literature. A thorough examination of all aspects of climate science can lead to a deeper understanding of the complexities and potential biases within this field. Both the scientific community and the journals that disseminate research must strive for greater neutrality in their approaches to the publication and discussion of scientific research. This is essential for fostering a more comprehensive and critical approach to climate science, enabling a more robust and informed scientific discourse that can serve the diverse needs and concerns of global society.
Dr Brown’s essay is well worth reading in its entirety.
Not to belittle Brown’s thoughtful analysis, but the social dynamic boils down to two simple things.
First, peer review is really pal review.
Second, academia is publish or perish, and nobody wants to perish.
I don’t think his solutions will work, either. The social dynamic he describes is too entrenched and self reinforcing. What will eventually break the social dynamic is failure. Failure of ‘climate science’ predictions. And failure of ‘climate science’ mitigation solutions such as ‘net zero soon or we’re all gonna die’.
The UNFCCC and the IPCC will probably lumber on in increasing irrelevance. And the COPx will continue, because the conference parties really like to party.
But the world will slowly turn away—-40 years is already a lot of ‘climate science’ failure. They got sea level rise wrong. They got Arctic sea ice wrong. They got polar bears wrong. They got ECS wrong. They got renewable feasibility wrong. It is very hard to think of anything they got right.
To paraphrase Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions: ‘Men go mad in crowds, but only slowly come back to their senses one by one.’ We got the crowd madness with UNFCCC, and 40 years later some are starting to return to their senses. The Scottish government just collapsed when the Greens quit the coalition after SNP announced it could not meet the Green 2030 climate goals.
I wonder how “might” (the most usual prediction) might fail.
Rud, it doesn’t matter what climate science says nor what its practitioners do or don’t do; limited OPM (Other People’s Money) will be its undoing. Both wild governmental COVID spending and attempts to keep the spigots flowing with reckless governmental green spending such as the Leftist FJB ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ have inflamed national inflation through grossly excessive borrowing and “printing” increasingly worthless money.
As well as inflation’s driving up the cost of all governmental services and therefore government budgets, inflation’s associated higher interest rates limit the government’s budgeting ability to service its ballooning debt. An effectively shrinking budget “pie” invites other important government spending needs to demand relatively larger shares compared to big-ticket climate spending. It will increasingly become more of a problem since Leftist government industrial planners grossly underestimated the costs and availability (feasibility) of green infrastructure.
By now it should be obvious to everybody that the green nirvana is not achievable at any price.
The Greens didn’t quit, Rud, the SNP dumped them as coalition partners because the Green minority tail was trying to wag the SNP dog!
His suggestions would work if there was a path to implementation that was not blocked.
A well reasoned article but sadly, since the day that Hansen colluded with the fixing of the air conditioning system for his testimony to Congress on ‘global warming’ in 1988, through the climategate papers to the present day, there is overwhelming evidence that activism, funding and career protection contaminate the objectivity of climate science.
Unfortunately the situation is irretrievable.
JS, reality will eventually retrieve it. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
Hansen: Otherwise known as The Fraudfather….
“Both the scientific community and the journals that disseminate research must strive for greater neutrality in their approaches to the publication and discussion of scientific research”
If they wanted to do this they would. The entire Climate Crusading Crew are of one mind: DEFEND MOTHER EARTH!!! They make hockey sticks. They change past temperature records. They mount the thermometers in the hottest places they can find. They lie about Re-fricking-Newables. They talk about acidification of the ocean. They actually altered the ARGO records which showed cooling for the first couple of years.
They believe they are doing THE RIGT THING. They ignore the simple fact that prosperity depend on mining minerals and drilling for oil and gas.
They lie like rugs.
RIGHT
At first I thought you were cheering yourself on…
And the Democrats have huge donors funding these scientific fiascoes. I frequently cheer myself on, but not tonight, just a typo. Also depends, not depend, not Depends either.
They are defending their ego’s and incomes in the laziest way possible.
They use academically light peer reviewers to patch their work through.
Climate science is hardly the only place where this happens. Think pharma, LGBT “studies”, etc.
Question: How come “ego’s” got an apostrophe but “incomes” didn’t?
NEUTRALITY is a funny word in this context. Or do you really mean sticking to 50% truth, 50% lies?
Note the quotation marks
In fairness to Argo, there were originally two float temperature sensor designs. One proved faulty in the lab after reporting cooling, so those floats were excluded from the early record and all future floats just include the one reliable (sort of) design. JPL was an honest attempt to correct a newly discovered problem with the early deployment. See my long ago guest post, ‘Argo—fit for purpose?’.
Not like homogenization, a dishonest attempt to ‘correct’ a contaminated GAST.
In 2004, there was a Faulty temperature sensor in a multi-million-dollar research project? In 1904, maybe.
So I read your post. Seabird worked and whatever the other one was did not work? Who would buy an unproven temp sensor for all that money? Josh Willis is a member of the Climate Crusader Crew.
“… “Both the scientific community and the journals that disseminate research must strive for greater neutrality…”
No money in that.
Commenters seem unaware that prestigious journals and institutions have signed up to Covering Climate Now, involving a pledge to hype global warming and disparage sceptics. Here’s a few of them, there are hundreds of lesser entities
Twiggy Forrest’s Fortescue has taken their “green hydrogen” project from Australia to Arizona. Reason being is that Arizona’s predominantly fossil fuelled electricity is 25% of the cost of Australian electricity.
So is hydrogen from electrolysis still green if it is mostly produced by coal and gas?
Arizona produces something like 350TWh of electricity per year for their 7.3M people, UK produce 266TWh for their 68M. Looking at these numbers, it is no wonder than Arizona is becoming a haven for Climate Ambitionâ„¢ refugees while UK is in economic decline.
Climate Ambitionâ„¢ is destroying western economies.
Climate change means social engineering to the Greens. Dehumanise, depopulate, control. The New Human.Started mid 19th century for real but actually since the Enlightenment w Adam Smith. Travelled straight through socialism, communism, constructivism, fascism, hippies, Malthus, Gaia Theory, silicon valley, the tech giants to current NGOs, WHO, WEF, VN.
And always a small undemocratic group to set the parameters. The New Human is an automaton, a good ‘being’ stripped from the bad stuff. Not man or woman but transhuman. A brave new world if you wish..
Let’s not mince words. Mainstream climate science as promoted in the lying media relies on bias, false assumptions, false attributions, cherry picked data and circular reasoning to reach their phony conclusions which multiple lines of empirical evidence prove to be preposterous nonsense.
Kudos to Dr. Brown. Expecting change within the climate science community and the leading journals is noble but I don’t see it happening. It is clear they have to change but I fear it will be a nasty and ugly process. Not because of us but because of them. People like those at WUWT have been trying to nudge the other side into being more forthright and transparent ever since I’ve been coming to the site. They don’t give a damn about honesty, transparency or politeness. Time for us to try something else.
Let’s hope the change is very nasty and very ugly. Deservedly so.
Is already starting with wind turbine purveyors and German solar installers. And with Texas solar farms newly destroyed by hail. And many offshore US wind projects newly cancelled because of ‘insufficient subsidies’.
Texas is not the only locale in the US where PV systems are being destroyed by hail, just this week I heard of another in South Carolina.
I wonder if tornadoes have destroyed any yet. That should be quite a mess with panels spread over a county.
I don’t believe they are designed to survive flying 2×4 lumber.
Shame is a powerful tool for modifying human behavior. Outing them as brain dead idiots might counter denier shaming that keeps them in line.
The costs are tremendous. Bloomberg’s green energy research team estimates $US200 trillion to stop warming by 2050.
There are about 2 billion households worldwide, that is $100,000 per household.
Ninety percent of households can’t afford anything additional so the others will have to pay $1 million per household.
Almost all households would rather have a degree or two of warming and a million dollars in the bank.
Well, I’m retired, so the climate agenda scammers get nothing from me except through raised electricity bills and food prices etc..
Perhaps one of the AGW trollettes will offer to pay my share. 😉
I think those who avidly support the scam should be identified and be the ones who pay for it.
Leave the realists out of this financial power-grab.
I think we are missing the prime mover …. the fight is against a well entrenched and funded Marxist movement. The Green movement and science are just puppets.
Personally, don’t think so.
Marxists believe ‘from each according to ability, to each according to need’. Paraphrasing Das Kapital from memory. Just Theft. The basic flaw of course is ignoring human productive motivation. ‘Steal my stuff, I don’t do more stuff.’
Climate Alarmists want much more evil. Depopulation, destruction of industry, return to preindustrial civilization. All Marxists wanted was to steal capitalistic wealth gains, not simply just destroy them in the name of a false green Eden.
You’re wrong about that Rud. Cultural Marxism seeks to destroy society in order to clear the way for a utopian future.
There are people who make a lot of money from being involved in scientific matters. An excellent example is Rockefeller Foundation creating a view of the harm to people from low doses of toxins, the LNT theory as studied by Prof Edward Calabrese. Wrong science has been entrenched as correct, allowing manipulation of legislation to produce outcomes
favouring those who distorted. This leads to over regulated high costs on nuclear power generation and less effective use of gasoline because lead is banned, as two examples. Maybe the distorters seek a human ideal like protection from harm, maybe they just love the rich life, I do not know their motivation because I do not share it, but the large detriment to all people is visible when people study it. Few people do. They are dissuaded.
This interference with better science is not limited to a few examples. My personal view is now that all science is riddled with interference from beliefs and wealth-seekers. Look and you will find. Elon Musk did this to Twitter and found rampant influencers at work. Not science, different social field, but similar mechanisms.
Geoff S
wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/18/corruption-of-science-by-money-and-power
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111025
Someone with more ability and means than I have might investigate the present ownership of the most-used scientific journals and write an article for WUWT.
No matter who the main owners are, they have sought to gain positions of influence over what is fed to the public as acceptable science.
These should be no such influence. Allow interference and you have lost the value of science. It becomes a form of gossip.
Geoff S
The author should remember the words of Mann in the CRU emails. “The Cause.” The cause Mann referenced certainly isn’t science.
Don’t forget that science aligning with politics is not a bug, it’s a feature. The Prussians invented the research university during the Napoleonic era to strengthen the state. The US got late into the game with Johns Hopkins as the first research university in 1876. But we caught up with the Germans.
Nope. There is no future in a null result.
Let us assume I work for a large government funded research organisation. The government asks the organisation to investigate climate change.
I am given the job. Being a good scientist I go back over historical records and do some analysis of available proxy data for temperature and sea level and demonstrate a high correlation with changes in solar intensity due to orbital variation. I conclude that the more recent observed changes are all consistent with orbital variation. Job done.
How do you think such a conclusion would fly? In fact I know of a senior scientist in that position about 15 years ago although his conclusion was that the temperature records were not fit for scientific analysis. He was duly sacked because he got the wrong answer. Last I heard he was on much lower pay teaching physics at a tech college.
Government funded research organisations have no integrity. They just want funding. The boss sees it as his duty to keep the funds rolling in so he can keep his people employed. And that requires pandering to the political class doing their bidding and giving them the answer they want.
Government funded research organisations in Australia have been highly destructive.
Rick,
Yes, absolutely agree with you. Much of my bcareer was spent asking others with particular skills to do work for me. That is rather different to reading a piece of research that reports null result.
We seem to nbe entering a society where people are afraid, incompetent, shy, to take the initiative and get things done. The orders from the bureaucracy are inctreasing, which is the wrong way round, because they impede more than they progres.
The whole system of research in science is in a horrible mess. OIne result is that little innovative, quality, advancement of learning work is being done. We all pay the price for that.
Example, the capture and degradation of the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS. It is now more accurately an Association for the Advancement of Beliefs. Geoff
Your last sentence is absolutely true. He who pays the piper calls the tune. As long as scientific enterprises are funded by Government, there will be interference and corruption.
Climate modeling constrains climate science. Climate modelers are not scientists.
The late, highly respected and loss-lamented Tim Ball is on record decrying the corrosive impact of climate modeling on climate science. His further considered view was that climate science had been deliberately corrupted. pdf He names names.
His video presentation: The Biggest Scam in History The politicization of climate science dates right back to the Charney Report. It became fixed in pride of place on 23 June 1988 with Jim Hansen’s alarmist exhalations before the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Courtesy of Senator Timothy Wirth.
Pat Brown has discovered nothing new. He can be congratulated for having finally awakened to a thoroughly ensconced and utterly polluted practice. That, long after complete destruction of the field in which he has an earned Ph.D.