National Association of Scholars calls out threats to the ‘Integrity of Science’

National Association of Scholars Logo

Peter Woods of NAS writes:

I am pasting below a copy of an email that I’ve sent to many members of the National Academy of Sciences. I’ve also sent a version of it to the board members of the AAAS.  And I have posted it to the National Association of Scholars website here.

It explains itself pretty clearly, but it will help to give a little background.  We were drawn into this by James Enstrom, a former UCLA senior scientist and a National Association of Scholars member. We championed his case when he was fired for blowing the whistle on a major fraud at the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB had issued research findings (and ultimately regulations) based on a study that Enstrom demonstrated was fraudulent.  The main author of the study had a mail order Ph.D.—as it happens, the address of the phony degree-granting institution is on Madison Avenue two blocks from my office.  There was other mischief too, involving several of Enstrom’s colleagues who had seats at CARB.

Enstrom sought to publish some account of this in Science under the editorship of Marcia McNutt.  He didn’t get anywhere. But he did end up making the acquaintance of other scientists who had similar experiences with McNutt. McNutt is now the only candidate to be president of the National Academy of Sciences.  Enstrom hoped that if he could draw attention to her record of bolting the door against scientific dissent from establishment positions, the members of the Academy might have second thoughts.

I don’t want to put the National Association of Scholars into a campaign against McNutt’s election, but it does seem to me a good opportunity to raise broader questions about how science is now conducted in the United States—and how public policy is being built on it.

For several years I’ve been trying to get some traction for the National Association of Scholars on the threats to the integrity of contemporary science arising from entrenched political interests. We’ve made relatively little headway with this, although our studies of the sustainability movement and its subsidiary the fossil fuel divestment movement have attracted considerable attention. There are, of course, a handful of people in Congress who have enunciated their skepticism about the global warming orthodoxy and now the reliability of the Marks paper that claims that the pause in global warming never happened.

Breaking through the barriers to open scientific discussion requires finding 1) champions who can command public attention and respect; 2) factual narratives that are relatively easy for the public to grasp; and 3) vulnerabilities that the establishment cannot trivialize. I would think the best way to deal with the three issues mentioned in my letter would be to get the press interested in the enormous costs of the regulations that have been based on these spurious – or at least dubious – theories.

Yours,

Peter Wood


December 9, 2015

Dear Members of the National Academy of Sciences,

This is an NAS to NAS letter—which requires some “disambiguation.”  I am president of the National Association of Scholars, founded in 1987, and whose organizers apparently didn’t give much thought to the space already occupied by those initials by the National Academy of Sciences, founded 124 years earlier.  I’ll defer to the Academy’s seniority by reserving NAS in what follows for the body of scientists who incorporated during President Lincoln’s tenure.  The National Association of Scholars is a broad-based group of academics that includes professors in the humanities and social sciences (I’m an anthropologist) as well as the natural sciences.

The occasion for this letter is Dr. Marcia K. McNutt, Editor-in-Chief of Science. We are concerned that she is the only official candidate to be the next NAS president.  To be clear, the National Association of Scholars does not oppose Dr. McNutt’s candidacy.  We simply believe that members of an important national organization like NAS should have at least two candidates to consider when voting for your next president.  Indeed, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which publishes Science, always has two candidates for president and its other elected positions.  Other scientific organizations also have two candidates for their elected positions.

Also, we want to bring to your attention our serious concerns about the current state of discourse in the sciences.  Dr. McNutt has played a significant role in three active controversies involving national regulatory policy that deserve attention in themselves and that are also part of a larger problem.  The larger problem is how the scientific establishment, particularly Science and NAS, should evaluate and respond to serious dissent from legitimate scientists.  This is an especially important consideration for NAS, which was established to provide “independent, objective advice on issues that affect people’s lives worldwide.”

The three controversies are:

1.  The status of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dose-response model for the biological effects of nuclear radiation.  The prominence of the model stems from the June 29, 1956 Science paper, “Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation,” authored by the NAS Committee on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation.  This paper is now widely questioned and has been seriously critiqued in many peer-reviewed publications, including two detailed 2015 papers.  These criticisms are being taken seriously around the world, as summarized in a December 2, 2015 Wall Street Journal commentary.  In August 2015 four distinguished critics of LNT made a formal request to Dr. McNutt to examine the evidence of fundamental flaws in the 1956 paper and retract it.  However, on August 11, 2015 Dr. McNutt rejected this request without even reviewing the detailed evidence.  Furthermore, Dr. McNutt did not even consider recusing herself and having independent reviewers examine evidence that challenges the validity of both a Science paper and an NAS Committee Report.

This is a consequential matter that bears on a great deal of national public policy, as the LNT model has served as the basis for risk assessment and risk management of radiation and chemical carcinogens for decades, but now needs to be seriously reassessed.  This reassessment could profoundly alter many regulations from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, and other government agencies.  The relevant documents regarding the 1956 Science paper and Dr. McNutt can be examined at www.nas.org/images/documents/LNT.pdf.

2.  Extensive evidence of scientific misconduct in the epidemiology of fine particulate air pollution (PM2.5) and its relationship to mortality.  Since 1997 EPA has claimed that lifetime inhalation of about a teaspoon of particles with diameter less than 2.5 microns causes premature death in the United States and it established an national regulation based on this claim.  Science has provided extensive news coverage of this issue and its regulatory significance, but has never published any scientific criticism of this questionable claim, which is largely based on nontransparent research.

Earlier this year, nine accomplished scientists and academics submitted to Science well-documented evidence of misconduct by several of the PM2.5 researchers relied upon by EPA.  The evidence of misconduct was first submitted to Dr. McNutt in a detailed June 4, 2015 email letter, then in a detailed July 20, 2015 Policy Forum manuscript “Transparent Science is Necessary for EPA Regulations,” and finally in an August 17, 2015 Perspective manuscript “Particulate Matter Does Not Cause Premature Deaths.” Dr. McNutt and two Science editors immediately rejected the letter and the manuscripts and never conducted any internal or external review of the evidence.  This a consequential matter because many multi-billion dollar EPA air pollution regulations, such as, the Clean Power Plan, are primarily justified by the claim that PM2.5 is killing Americans.  The relevant documents regarding this controversy can be examined at https://www.nas.org/images/documents/PM2.5.pdf.

3. Science promotes the so-called consensus model of climate change and excludes any contrary views.  This issue has become so polarized and polarizing that it is difficult to bring up, but at some point the scientific community will have to reckon with the dramatic discrepancies between current climate models and substantial parts of the empirical record.  Recent evidence of Science bias on this issue is the June 26, 2015 article by Dr. Thomas R. Karl, “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus”; the July 3, 2015 McNutt editorial, “The beyond-two-degree inferno”; the November 13, 2015 McNutt editorial, “Climate warning, 50 years later”; and the November 25, 2015 AAAS News Release, “AAAS Leads Coalition to Protest Climate Science Inquiry.”

Dr. McNutt’s position is, of course, consistent with the official position of the AAAS. But the attempt to declare that the “pause” in global warming was an illusion has not been accepted by several respected and well-informed scientists. One would not know this, however, from reading Science, which has declined to publish any dissenting views.  One can be a strong supporter of the consensus model and yet be disturbed by the role which Science has played in this controversy.  Dr. McNutt and the journal have acted more like partisan activists than like responsible stewards of scientific standards confronted with contentious claims and ambiguous evidence.  The relevant documents and commentary regarding the Karl paper and McNutt editorials can be examined at https://www.nas.org/images/documents/Climate_Change.pdf.

All three of these controversies have arisen on issues in which a strong degree of scientific consensus became intertwined with public policy and institutional self-interest.  That intertwining can create selective blindness.

Dr. McNutt has in her career found herself faced more than once with the challenge of what to do when an entrenched orthodoxy meets a substantial scientific challenge.  The challenge in each case could itself prove to be mistaken, but it met what most scientists would concede to be the threshold criteria to deserve a serious hearing.  Yet in each case Dr. McNutt chose to reinforce the orthodoxy by shutting the door on the challenge.

The three areas that I sketched above, however, seem to have such prominence in public policy that they would warrant an even greater investment in time, care, and attention than would be normally the case. In that light, Dr. McNutt’s dismissive treatment of scientific criticisms is disturbing.

I bring these matters to your attention in the hope of accomplishing two things: raise awareness that the three issues represent threats to the integrity of science arising from the all-too-human tendency to turn ideas into orthodoxies; and suggest that it might be wise for NAS to nominate as a second candidate for president someone who has a reputation for scientific objectivity and fairness and who does not enforce orthodoxy.

I welcome your responses.  The National Association of Scholars will present an open forum on these matters with a section reserved specifically for NAS members.  Furthermore, I will put you in contact with NAS members who are concerned about Dr. McNutt becoming the next NAS president.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Wood
President
National Association of Scholars
8 W. 38th Street, Suite 503
New York, NY 10018

Advertisements

137 thoughts on “National Association of Scholars calls out threats to the ‘Integrity of Science’

    • Science is not what it used to be. It settles too easily.

      The rot is amazingly widespread. Reminds me of “100 (German) authors against Einstein”.

      • Yes, indeed, Curious George:

        Disgustingly familiar…

        The story is ugly, sad, at times comic. It illustrates the complicated interactions between science and politics in Naz1 Germany, for although one might expect the “Aryan physics” (Deutsche Physik) of Stark and Lenard to have been welcomed by the National Socialists, its reception in official circles was decidedly mixed, and in the end it was ignored. The case of Deutsche Physik reveals how much of what went on in the Naz1 state depended on how you played your cards rather than on what sort of hand you held. It shows how the German scientists’ pretensions of being “apolitical” did not prevent politics from infecting scientific ideas themselves, and almost overwhelming them. Perhaps most importantly, the story explodes the comforting myth that science offers insulation against profound irrationality and extremism.

        (emphases mine)

        Excerpt from this book: Serving the Reich: The Struggle for the Soul of Physics under Hitler, by Philip Ball.

        Copied from this article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/

        I highlighted “in the end it was ignored… to say: TAKE HEART, all you science realists, hard as the going is in the meantime (and some are sacrificing dearly, e.g., MarkW),

        in the end…

        truth wins.

        Every time.
        ****************************************

        (we are up against enviroprofiteer greed — that is why AGW is still around at all…)

      • The Master Plan by Heather Pringle is an account of a bogus scientific institute, the Ahnenerbe, which Himmler created. It was tasked with using anthropology and other sciences to conduct pseudo-research into Germany’s ancestral heritage and thereby justify the myth of Aryan superiority. “It was staffed with opportunists and chancers, many of whom went on to distinguished post-war academic careers.” One of the take aways from the book was how easily these scientists could be bought.
        http://www.amazon.ca/The-Master-Plan-Himmlers-Holocaust/dp/0786887737

      • And of course their contemporaries the Soviets went even further with Lysenkoism.

        Every awful political movement has its own wonderfully elaborate pseudo-scientific justification.

    • Amazing, tragic story

      “Enstrom also assembled evidence that claimed powerful UC professors systematically exaggerated the adverse health effects of diesel particulate matter in California, “knowing full well that these exaggerations would be used by the California Air Resources Board to justify draconian diesel vehicle regulations.”

      This must head straight into the California VW emissions scandal.

    • Please, oh please! Don’t just post links, but include a short summary of what the link contains. I’ve been “bitten” too many times following a non-documented link, and consequently will not waste time following them.

      • I clicked because errr well I was dumb. Anyway, it was a good article albeit a few years old.
        Takes the reader back to when particulate matter risk assessment was being challenged and California just didn’t have time for such disagreement. Another professor sacrificed.

  1. We are getting more and more of these incidents of entrenched bias. Science will be the loser — at least the disinterested model of science where hypotheses are tested by experiment and observation.

    • Not only will science be the loser but in the long run all of us will be. If the warmists ( and the regulatory bodies influenced by them) keeps coming up with these actions it is going to herald the “Dark Ages” of old. ( @ the mods: there should be more stars as Jo Nova’s site has, with a break down IMO)

  2. “Dr. McNutt’s dismissive treatment of scientific criticisms is”

    Strong evidence of:

    1. Incompetency (to a degree making her unqualified for her job);

    and/or

    2. Bias (to a degree making her unfit for her job).

    Rational conclusion: Get rid of McNutt — now.

    Well said, Peter Wood!

    • When Science published its 2014 “What We Know” pseudoscience piece, the reality of McNutt’s corruption was quite clear to me.That piece would have been better in a political email, but had no place in the US’s premier science journal. AAAS Should have fired McNutt, but they took the Chicken way out, which is” F-up to move up”, just get rid of her next summer by letting move-on to NAS president. She likely has also been promised for her continued cooperation” to be a short-list contender to a H Clinton WH science advisor job, I.e. John Holxren’s successor, if Ms Clinton is able to lie her way past enough dumb voters.

    • Janice you are one very good commentator, I saw a comment on an old thread about older men seeing beauty in older women. I am an old bloke and age in women oft makes them more beautiful not only in looks but they are much more benign and pleasant in their dealings with men. Something to do with the cycles of the moon no longer effecting their moods. I found a life partner recently and she is 64 , sexiest women I have ever know. All power to you princess. Wayne

      • Oh, Wayne.

        Thank you.

        And, I am so happy for you (both of you… she is blessed).

        (lol — I was so touched by your kindness that I almost wrote “Love, Janice” — heh)

        Gratefully,

        Janice

      • Dear Jim B.,

        COOL!!! For, I am almost certainly going to be in my 80’s by the time my dream could possibly (in the normal course of things) come true.

        Thanks, so much, for taking the time to help keep my dream alive.

        I hope that you are in arms of your sweetheart — often!

        Janice

  3. One heck of a good letter. NAS is also the organization that exposed the growing (and now complete) bias in social sciences in the University of California system, at the request of its Board of Regents.
    McNutt’s antiscientific bias on climate change, as the editor of Science, was previously discussed over at Climate Etc. when McNutt first published her damning opinion. Go read that thread. And then read the Steinman/Mann v. Kratsov, Wyatt, Curry thread that is now current. Another example of egregious bias. Mann writes a spurious refutation of the Curry/Wyatt stadium wave paper in Science, gets it out in 3 months. The devastating mathematical rebuttal by the stadium wave team is delayed a year, then published together with a (mathematically wrong, par for the Mann course) rebuttal of the rebuttal. More evidence of stacked decks and unlevel playing fields, thanks to McNutt.

  4. Just “Nookied” a copy of Peter L. Ward’s latest book, “What Really Causes Global Warming – GHGs or ozone” that offers up ozone as an explanation for global warming.

    WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG —— WRONG & Wrong!!!

    The scientific method does not demand that we skeptics offer an alternative explanation for a non-existent problem. All the scientific method requires is that skeptics poke holes in CAGW theory and if they can’t patch those holes that’s their problem. Cold fusion, anyone?

    It is obvious that the earth has been hotter and CO2 concentrations higher in the distant past without mankind and that any current minor fluctuations in CO2 and heating are simply natural variability. In the uncertainties surrounding the magnitude and fluxes of both CO2 and heat/power balances, CAGW theory has not demonstrated that anthropogenic sources make a significant contribution compared to natural variability which is evident in their theory’s inability to model or match reality.

    CAGW theory is a combination of esoteric concepts, hocus-pocus proxies, hand waving, corrupted data, and name calling that has collapsed in the face of reality. We skeptics should not compete by playing their losing game.

    The ball is in the warmist’s court, not the skeptic’s. Time for CAGW to put or shut up.

    • +1

      — AGW has never made a prima facie case for its speculation, much less shifted the burden of proof to the science realists.

      • Janice.. This from above… “Breaking through the barriers to open scientific discussion requires finding 1) champions who can command public attention and respect; 2) factual narratives that are relatively easy for the public to grasp; and 3) vulnerabilities that the establishment cannot trivialize. I would think the best way to deal with the three issues mentioned in my letter would be to get the press interested in the enormous costs of the regulations that have been based on these spurious – or at least dubious – theories.”

        This is your chance to be #1 a champion… etc. and #2

      • Dear Al!

        Wow! What a generously kind thing to say!! I will admit (with a blush) that when I saw those lines I actually DID perk up my ears and wished I could DO that….. then….. realized, (sigh) that I am not qualified (not being modest, just the truth), for I am not a public figure (or, alternatively, highly respected in a relevant field of study) who could possibly “command public attention and respect.”

        Your encouragement was an early Christmas present to me, though — thank you, so much.

        Perhaps, I could WRITE for such a person, though…

        Keep warm up there in Edmonton!

        Take care,

        Janice

      • Ms Moore

        Al makes an honest point.

        You do have an authenticity to your communication style and that is the most important attribute for that field.
        You also have what appears to be the ability to articulate the relevant fact (and non fact) in a manner that is easy to understand. By the very nature of the work, researchers tend to dig into increasingly finer points of detail. That process can be daunting for an outsider because it takes time to learn what they know. I takes even longer to understand what they don’t know.

        I found myself once or twice looking at your summary to see what I wanted to dive into further, so that indicates to me that you have an easy to read style that translates with accuracy into the common man’s brain … like mine.

        Thanks for that.

      • Exactly. As I recall, the logic was ‘We can’t find any other reason”. Yet we keep on finding new things, eg the CO2 absorption by saltwater algae.

      • Dear Knute,

        Wow — am I being given a big bunch of Christmas gifts today — just WOW!!!
        Thank you — that ANYTHING I wrote was helpful to you, a first-rate researcher, gives me pleasure.
        #(:))

        With warm regards from a common woman to a common man with an uncommonly fine mind (and a big heart — the most important thing of all),

        Janice

        P.S. Lest all this kindness to JM bring a frown to you, dear reader, if you only knew….. I think you would not mind. Thank you for your patience, here.

    • CAGW theory is a combination of esoteric concepts, hocus-pocus proxies, hand waving, corrupted data, and name calling that has collapsed in the face of reality.

      And 0 fundamental quantitative physical equations or experimental demonstration .

    • Sorry to rain on your parade. Peter Wood of NAS is not th Peter Ward of ‘ozone, not CO2, wot done it’ infamy. WARD, not Wood, mistake is rising to the bait of needing a counterexplanation, then offering something goofier than the original goof.
      The null hypothesis is natural variation (all that inconvenient pre 1950 climate stuff warmunists continue to try to supress). It is for them to disprove the null. Thats how unperverted science should work. Except in the McNutt era, when the scientific method became ‘McNutty’. Sort of not Sorry, could not resist the appropriate innuendo.

    • Nicholas, stop cutting and pasting your comment into every thread. I cannot imagine even one logical reason why you would be screaming about advancing scientific understanding, especially in relation to our climate.

      The advancement of understanding about how this planet works IS what science does. The scientific method of COURSE does not demand that skeptics offer an alternative explanation of anything. BUT ongoing studies that help build the case that CO2 is NOT a problem are helpful and welcome. Dr Ward has been investigating various natural influences on the atmosphere for decades, and more power to him I say.

      • blockquote>Dr Ward has been investigating various natural influences on the atmosphere …

        (emphasis mine)

        Thank you for that information, Aphan. While I still agree with Schroeder’s sub-point about the burden of proof lying solidly on the AGWers, I’m glad to know that Dr. Ward is asserting that natural, and not human emission-caused, ozone is the driver. It appeared (and I acknowledge that I was mistaken as to that) that Dr. Ward was asserting that ozone, per se, was the driver…. which only opens up another can of AGW… .

        Another fan of Aphan,

        Janice

      • Ward does an admirable job of gutting CAGW, but wandering off into the ozone was unnecessary and counterproductive.

        OK, here’s a sciencey based case study that CO2 is not a problem. Yes, it’s a repeat and will be until it gets a sciencey type rebuttal.

        Prior to MLO the atmospheric CO2 concentrations, both paleo ice cores and inconsistent contemporary grab samples, were massive wags. Data at some of NOAA’s tall towers passed through 400 ppm years before MLO reached that level. IPCC AR5 TS.6 cites uncertainty in CO2 concentrations over land. Preliminary data from OCO-2 suggests that CO2 is not as well mixed as assumed. Per IPCC AR5 WG1 chapter 6 mankind’s share of the atmosphere’s CO2 is basically unknown, could be anywhere from 4% to 96%. (IPCC AR5 Ch 6, Figure 6.1, Table 6.1)

        The major global C/CO2 reservoirs (not CO2 per se, C is a precursor proxy for CO2), i.e. oceans, atmosphere, vegetation & soil, contain over 45,000 Pg (Gt) of C/CO2. Over 90% of this C/CO2 reserve is in the oceans. Between these reservoirs ebb and flow hundreds of Pg C/CO2 per year, the great fluxes. For instance, vegetation absorbs C/CO2 for photosynthesis producing plants and O2. When the plants die and decay they release C/CO2. A divinely maintained balance of perfection for thousands of years, now unbalanced by mankind’s evil use of fossil fuels.

        So just how much net C/CO2 does mankind’s evil fossil fuel consumption add to this perfectly balanced 45,000 Gt cauldron of churning, boiling, fluxing C/CO2? 3 Gt C/CO2. That’s correct, 3. Not 3,000, not 300, 3! How are we supposed to take this seriously? (Anyway 3 is totally assumed/fabricated to make the numbers work.)

        IPCC AR5 attributes 2 W/m^2 of unbalancing RF due to the increased CO2 concentration between 1750 and 2011 (Fig TS.7). In the overall global heat balance 2 W (watt is power, not energy) is lost in the magnitude and uncertainty of: ToA, 340 +/- 10, fluctuating albedo of clouds, snow and ice, and the absorption and release of heat from evaporation and condensation of the ocean and water vapor cycle. (IPCC AR5 Ch 8, FAQ 8.1)

        IPCC AR5 acknowledges the LTT pause/hiatus/lull/stasis in Text Box 9.2 and laments the failure of the GCMs to model it. IPCC GCMs don’t work because IPCC exaggerates climate sensitivity (TS 6.2), of CO2/GHGs RF in the heat balance and dismiss the role of water vapor because man does not cause nor control it.

        The sea ice and sheet ice is expanding not shrinking, polar bear population is the highest in decades, the weather (30 years = climate) is less extreme not more, the sea level rise is not accelerating, the GCM’s are repeat failures, the CAGW hypothesis is coming unraveled, COP21 has all the makings of yet another embarrassing fiasco, IPCC AR6 will mimic SNL’s Roseanne Roseannadanna (Gildna Radner aka Emily Litella), “Well, neeeveeer mind!!”

      • ‘Ward does an admirable job of gutting CAGW, but wandering off into the ozone was unnecessary and counterproductive.”

        Nicholas, on what grounds did you become the High Holy Voice of Skepticism that gets to determine whose work is necessary and productive vs whose work is unnecessary and counterproductive? As far as I know, or care, Dr. Ward does work for his own satisfaction and shares what he learns/discovers/knows with the world if he so chooses to. YOUR opinion of his work does not even remotely appeal to me nor does your argument make it any less of an opinion or any more of a fact.

  5. Asking a religious person (i.e. a true believer) to seriously engage in criticism of their religion is a nonstarter. The only way to overcome a religious hierarchy is for the peasants (in this case the actual scholars) to storm the castle (which would be equivalent to a letter campaign followed by resignations from the organization).

    My biggest concern anymore is how do these people rise to the position of being able to stifle science in the first place? How can you lead a scientific organization, or be an editor of a scientific journal, and not understand how science is supposed to work?

    Like the EPA, I am not sure the organization can be saved. It may be best to just start over with a new organization that has in its charter certain safeguards protecting the right of members to engage in a lively debate. Politics should NEVER be allowed in a scientific forum – it can only corrupt.

    • Not just NAS (national academy of science, not the other one). APS. AGU. RS. All corrupted by government research money hewing to the meme brings in. Eisenhower’s warning exemplified.

      • In a representative democracy, “running the country” IS politics: an arena for the competition of philosophies.

        Science, on the other hand, OUGHT to be: an arena for the pursuit of evidence.

        Just as politics has NO place (legitimately) in a court of law, so too, politics has NO place in science.

      • Janice Moore says:
        December 16, 2015 at 3:43 pm

        … politics has NO place in science.

        Scientists are all too human. Politics exists in science whether we like it or not.

      • +1

        Marketers figured out awhile back, esp post Bernays that if a scientist says it, people will suspend doubt.
        It’s a dastardly seduction of free will and SO, the obligation of something being considered a fact due to the scientific method should be very hard to achieve.

      • Hi, CommieBob,

        I need to clarity my statement, then:

        Politics has no {legitimate} place in science. That it exists in science I do not dispute.

        Thanks for letting me know my writing was a bit ambiguous.

        Janice

    • Hi, Robert – I became a Christian over a decade ago by seriously examining the atheistic/naturalism/scientism world view I was brought up under.

      I regularly explore defenses of and critiques of Christianity. But it is past the point of obvious.

      Have you seriously questioned the legitimacy of your apparent earthly father? Or have you thus far merely accepted what you have been told? I have questioned my heavenly father, so maybe that would be called for, in your case.

      • Good advice, my brother in Christ. Perhaps, (wry smile) Robert of Texas is afraid of what he might find out… could have some ramifications…

    • For the how, have a look at how communists and similarly strong left-wingers have taken over other organizations. In some cases it has been a case of waiting until the wee-smalls of the morning before taking a crucial vote that put the communist view in charge (and probably their slate as well); the others had given up by this point and gone to bed. Once they have taken over an organization they will never let it go. It is my understanding that Science, Nature, Scientific American, and National Geographic are equally untrustworthy and for the same reason.

      Ian M

      • Yes, Mr. McQueen. I can’t remember now which ex-Lefty it was who wrote about that–perhaps Sol Stern? Anyway, if it’s going on at the magazines you mention, that’s sad to hear. Although not as sad as what those magazines have become. When I was young, Scientific American really was a wonderful magazine, providing the latest scientific theories and findings to laymen who were interested, without any “dumbing down” to a “mass audience.”

  6. The author is a dead man walking. My appreciation for the integrity and bravery to who have written what he did is profound, however.

    • Face it, most liberals are dishonest in everything they do and say !!!

      Most people are dishonest in everything they do and say. Yes, I don’t believe that you and I aren’t as deluded as everyone else. Welcome to the human condition.

      • in the case of the western developed world i think we are now regressing. advocacy over investigation and feelings before evidence. we have the profiteers whose only morals relate to how much money they can make from the hard pressed tax payer. they fund the advocacy from supposedly scientific institutions and individuals the public perceive to be of high integrity.

        then we have the general public or useful idiots that now have such an easy life they can actually take time to go on climate marches as opposed to the daily struggle for survival there was in the past and exists in much of the third world today. the useful idiots lap the scaremongering and advocacy up while governments and institutions rub their hands with glee at the fools volunteering to give up more individual rights along with their hard earned dollars.

        i am coming to the conclusion that despite the misery it would cause, for humanity to progress meaningfully something like another ice age is actually needed to focus minds on just how harsh human existence can be . delusions of self importance are rife today,everyone appears to want to be “remembered” for something. celebrity culture in all walks of life is destroying humanity and needs to end, its promotion of form over function is abhorrent to me ,yet appears to appeal to many.

        todays leaders of institutions and governments in the western world are representative of a large part of the voting public , so the problem is widescale and not just down to those at the top, they actually reflect the general malaise in western society today.

  7. “A few compliant third-rate scientists were catapulted blinking mole-like out of obscurity and up into that media firmament of stardom. Basking in their new-found adulation, they became masters of the climate universe. The media hung on every word they uttered, the politicians engaged them as climate advisers, big business paid them handsomely for the cachet of their time as consultants, little men suddenly became important little men and gradually, the details of the science not only became unquestioned but also unquestionable.”

    https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/know-your-enemy-the-alarmist-scientist/

    Pointman

    • You don’t listen very well, 1. So, here it is again:

      In a representative democracy, “running the country” IS politics: an arena for the competition of philosophies.

      Science, on the other hand, OUGHT to be: an arena for the pursuit of evidence.

      Just as politics has NO place (legitimately) in a court of law, so too, politics has NO place in science.

      • Marcus: I wouldn’t be caught dead. (I actually DID think of that when I saw that ad, “only thing that thing is good for is a body bag,” lol)

      • Marcus: Thank you, so much, for the affirmation – (head shake) and here I am (sorry) nearly 2 hours later to tell you. You deserve better. And I will try!!!!!!

      • Don’t worry Janice, all is forgiven….
        Aphan, my friend….Don’t Even Think About It ! LOL
        Ho Ho Ho ( Are we still allowed to say that ? ) ARRRrrrrggg……

      • Janice,
        Politics are just part of human nature and finds it way into every aspect of our lives, government, business, family, and religion. Even U.S. Supreme court justices are political appointees chosen for there political viewpoint. I fear there is no way get the politics out of any aspect of our lives, not even science.
        I share your lament over the intrusion of politics into science which is best served by objectivity.

  8. Excellent references on driving issues.
    A case for revisiting nonsense based particulate and radiation exposure guidelines.
    Mr Watts does it again.

    I find the radiation exposure piece far more relevant.
    It is no surprise that the WSJ did an opinion piece on radiation exposure.
    NOT a coincidence as they are attempting to prep the masses for package plants of the future.

    Made in China of course.

  9. “Please be advised that you will not be reappointed Aug. 30, 2010. As previously notified, the reason for non-reappointment is the faculty of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences has determined your research is not aligned with the academic mission of the department.”

    Brutal stuff right there folks.

  10. Hunter, your statement about the author being a “dead man walking” is pure BS. He is standing up for his beliefs and honors us all by his doing so and I would think he probably feels more alive and fulfilled than the chicken [trimmed] who cower and grovel to the politics of it all, in fear of being fired or left for dead in their careers, rather than taking a stand.

    But I do understand your point.

  11. Well laid out.

    McNutt assuming this position is probably a pro forma exercise. It will cement the growing perception of the US NAS:

    National Academy of Pseudo Science.

    If NAS puts forth an alternate candidate, it will be to obscure her political declaration – the science is settled (from a purported scientist – what a disgrace!). But, nonetheless, that too will probably be a pro forma exercise. Those in control will act in contravention of science – according to their preconception.

    The fiscal locomotive of climate will be reversed only with the involvement of those who control the valve. As Hillary has made her intentions clear, the Republicans need more Cruz, as well as cooperation – soon.

  12. The best way to control the narrative is to be the Gatekeeper. The result is every scientific study on earth sciences published in Science & Nature have to include some homage to AGW. Thus, it is a self-fulfilling theory. It is a perpetual motion machine for regurgitating the story line.

  13. Academics need a very massive intervention.

    Many interventions actually. First against their addiction to prestigious publications, to IF (impact factor), to normalized academic fame.

  14. Bias in science: For a long, long time, it has been the scientific view that life begins at conception.

    There has never been, in any biology or embryology text, the identification of the life cycle of a human to describe what the stage of life that begins at conception and ends at the Supreme Courts’ legally settled “viability” demarcation.

    There has never been an explanation in any scholarly forum of why you can get a DNA profile of a four-week-old fetus to determine it is neither mother or fathers, but it is not yet alive.

    There has never been a scholarly, recognized statement declaring that, yes, you can be “a little pregnant,” and never one arguing that the housefly can have a two-week life cycle, but a four-week-old fetus cannot yet be human because it has not been in existence long enough. Further, a housefly larva looks nothing like an adult housefly, etc., etc.

    But try to ask that authors of a medical article reporting on some aspect of abortion support the view that the fetus is not yet alive, and this will not go over well with the journal editors.

    Articles generally in support of abortion by choice are published all the time – for political reasons, while reflecting a practice that science would technically define as “killing.”

    Feyerabend makes it very clear that we cannot expect “science” to ever have its own ontology independent of culture. This explains a lot.

    • IMHO, the easiest way to look at is that as soon as the sperm enters the egg they combine to make a UNIQUE sequence of HUMAN DNA that may never happen again…That makes every child at conception UNIQUE and priceless !!!

      • YES! And that DNA is not only unique, is immediately distinguishable as “human.”Thus, every ab0rtion (even the “morning after pill”) is a murder. Are we getting off the topic OR WHAT!!! I just had to affirm that one, Marcus — good going!
        #(:))

        [Let us stop at this point. .mod]

    • “For a long, long time, it has been the scientific view that life begins at conception”

      Bull

      Life doesn’t “begin”.

    • LOl, Knute — and do you know who they are directing those grins at? Their teacher. Who promised 1,000 extra credit points plus no final exam to all who participated. Heh. Look at front row, second from our left… very sincere — NOT!

      Took me back to high school….. I know those girls ……

      #(:))

      • I’m fascinating by how little it takes to get people to do something they’d never do on their own.
        The second from the left front row is very proud of being in charge of the letter B.

        She obviously needs to be in charge of Phase II.

        “A” is very good at getting parties and small get togethers arranged.

        In many ways it reminds me of how little it takes to get folks to follow a somewhat good idea without telling them what is really going to happen.

        The power of belonging.

      • Knute! When you are in high school, one thousand extra credit points and no final exam are A BIG DEAL. You would be willing to look pretty silly … . And have fun doing it!

      • Especially if it pleases the attention of a favorite boy.
        Engrained behaviors practiced in our youth.
        Exploited into young adulthood.

        Science never really stood a chance when the message makers got involved.

      • Marcus

        I seem to have to answer thru Janice.
        You MAY be right about the 3rd from the left, but according to my peer review panel
        they are fine with the degree of uncertainty recognized by 2nd from the left being close enough.

        Join me in publishing this observation as a co author and we can move onto more meaningful discoveries.

      • Knutsea, there is something wrong with your picture….the THIRD from the left is holding the B in my picture !! LOL

      • Knutsea,

        Dang, I forgot about that part of science now ! Unfortunately right now, I’m busy studying the physical affects of Canadian beer on the Human Anatomy.. It’s a tough job but somebody has to to do it !! Hic…

  15. Why do I suspect this kind of anti-science tomfoolery isn’t taking place in other parts of the World such as China, India and even Russia?

    Don’t these nutters understand that there’s a big academic World out there, and Western scientists with their politicised grant-grabbing fakery comprise an ever-decreasing proportion of it?

    It will end in tears.

  16. Current President of National Academy of Sciences is Ralph Cicerone, a former professor of “Earth System Science” and then a chair of namesake department in UCI. Stephen Schneider has mentioned him as a close associate.

    National Academy of Sciences seems hopeless. Whether it “elects” McNuts or not, National Academy of Sciences needs to be replaced, not repaired.

  17. In the introductory post to the letter and in the letter to National Academy of Sciences, we have these references to ‘integrity’ by Peter Wood (President, National Association of Scholars),

    “For several years I’ve been trying to get some traction for the National Association of Scholars on the threats to the integrity of contemporary science arising from entrenched political interests. . . .”

    &

    “I bring these matters to your [National Academy of Science’s] attention in the hope of accomplishing two things: raise awareness that the three issues represent threats to the integrity of science arising from the all-too-human tendency to turn ideas into orthodoxies; . . .”

    If you identify the nature of scientific integrity clearly, its abuses become clear. The following identification of the nature of scientific integrity has an element that is directly relatable to Wood’s (National Academy of Science) concerns about the cause of lack of integrity in science.

    {bold emphasis mine – John Whitman}

    Following quote from ‘Can High Moral Purposes Undermine Scientific Integrity?’ by Jussim, Crawford, Stevens, Anglin, Duarte (a draft chapter to appear in: J. Forgas, P. van Lange & L. Jussim, Sydney Symposium on Social Psychology of Morality),

    “What is Scientific Integrity?

    “Scientific integrity” refers to two related but separate ideas: 1. The personal honesty of individual scientists in the conduct and reporting of their research; and 2. Developing robust bodies of conclusions that are valid and unimpaired by errors and biases. Even when researchers suffer no lack of personal integrity, conventional practices common in their field may produce findings that are misleading or invalid. Nonetheless, “getting it right” is the sine qua non of science (Funder, Levine, Mackie, Morf, Vazire, & West, 2013). Science can tolerate individual mistakes and flawed theories, but only if it has reliable mechanisms for efficient correction.”

    With respect to that conception of scientific integrity, then the concern about scientific integrity in the behavior of McNutt (Editor-in-Chief of Science) is a concern about her tolerance of blocking “reliable mechanisms for efficient correction” of “flawed theories” and of blocking criticism of the scientists entrenched in the flawed theories.

    McNutt shows no inclination of changing her behavior that causes integrity concerns, so she remains an advocate of blocking “reliable mechanisms for efficient correction” in science.

    John

  18. Some time back I through the comments, I referred my publication Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 77 (1995) 113-120, with reference to pause in temperature. The greenhouse gases effect follow inverted ‘Z’ shape pattern in conversion of energy in to temperature with the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Ken Stewart on 16th December 2015 presented an article “Energy, Carbon Dioxide, and The Pause” by using energy data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015, CO2 data from NOAA, and Temperature data from UAH. Between 336 to 400 ppm of CO2 presented a relation of 0.0063 X, and between 370 to 400 ppm of CO2 presented 0.0004 X [pause]. This is exactly what I presented in my article with reference to relative growth or relative yield versus relative radiation stress or relative water stress or relative nutrient stress wherein maximum impact is in the slant line part shown in inverted Z. The horizontal portion in the present case started around 370 ppm – pause. The initial horizontal part might have ended at around 150 ppm. The slant portion was maximum in between 150 to 370 ppm of CO2. With more accurate temperature data that takes in to account the rural-cold-island effect will provide the correct limits to CO2 for starting of slant portion and starting of pause.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  19. The National Academy of Sciences like the U.S. Department of Agriculture is a Civil War Institution! It, like it’s sister bureaucracies and malfunctions needs to be disestablished and its current employees jailed for crimes and high treasons against the USA and Humanity.

    Ha ha

  20. As for linearity or lack thereof for causation of cancer by radiation: Most cells need at least two mutations to become cancerous, because people (or other animals that live long enough to have significant incidence of cancer) with many or most cells only 1 mutation away from becoming cancerous have lower reproduction rates due to often dying younger.

    Since most human cells are at least two mutations away from becoming cancerous from radiation, the cancer-causing effect of radiation is not linear. If you double a dose of radiation, you double the number of cells getting a 1st mutation from the dose, and you also double the dose received by cells after they get a first mutation from the dose. Not counting the cells that already had a 1st mutation when the radiation dose in question started (a minority of them in most cases), the number of cells getting a 2nd mutation roughly quadruples with a doubling of a dose of radiation. This is an oversimplification when the dose is over a period of time that is significant in comparison to the life expectancy (and variation of that with mutations) of the cells involved, but it explains cancer risk from exposure to radiation being generally superlinear.

  21. Janice Moore has well stated,
    “Just as politics has NO place (legitimately) in a court of law, so too, politics has NO place in science.”

    To expand, scientists like any other citizen has political views, voting preferences, political tribal attachments, in short political biases, but when those biases control their work, it is no longer science. This is similar to the guilt of an accused being dependent on their political affiliation. What a horrible world that would be. Unfortunately that is what is happening with science. Scientific organizations deciding to supplant science with partisan activism was probably inevitable based on the warnings in Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation.

    Eisenhower said. “Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity….The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite..”

    Eisenhower was smart man.

  22. … This issue has become so polarized and polarizing that it is difficult to bring up, but at some point the scientific community will have to reckon with the dramatic discrepancies between current climate models and substantial parts of the empirical record. …

    There does not seem to be a problem here.

    The modern the government funded science method is to change the observed data to whatever one needs so that it conforms to the predetermined faddish notion. See NOAA and the ever changing temperature “data” set for an example.

  23. “To be clear, the National Association of Scholars does not oppose Dr. McNutt’s candidacy. ”
    This would appear to be a disconnect between their arguments and the above statement. Too PC to state the obvious need perhaps?

  24. Thank you! Too many scientific organizations has published unscientific subjective statement in support of United Nations climate theory. Finally an organization starting to ask questions – rather than adding it´s weight to the dogma created by United Nations.

    United Nations scientific method – the UNscientific method – is a threat for mankind.

  25. A couple of thoughts.

    -ONE candidate to vote for?
    Reminds me of the Soviet Union I heard about when I was young.
    Everyone voted….. they had to….. but there would be only ONE person running for each office.

    -Everyone has heard of Ike’s farewell address, where he warned us about the ‘Military-Industrial Complex’. But very few know that, in the same speech, he warned us about a corrupt Government-funded Science ‘complex’.

    -I was an engineer in the Dept of the Interior for 33 years.
    It was a bad day when new Sec’y of the Interior Sally Jewell addressed the people working there and said “There better not be any DENIERS in the Department”. That was enough. That set the tone. Everyone realized that if they ever wanted to advance their career, they had best ‘toe the warmista Party line’.

    -The Science is not important to these people.
    All they need is pseudo-science, repeated loudly enough and granted enough headlines (like the false “97%” claim) that the politicians can use the headline, and the like-minded media can willfully look the other way and say:

    “These are not the droids we’re looking for.”
    “You can go about your business.”
    “Move along.”

    The Science is only to provide a fig-leaf of cover to impose CONTROL.

  26. There is a striking contrast between these examples and the handling of the famous, HIV does not cause AIDS proposition, advanced by NAS member, Peter Deusberg. My recollection of the Deusberg affair was that it was a fairly good example of how science should work. There were some voiced demanding that Deusberg be silenced, and there were clearly many virologists and biomedical scientists who were embarrassed that he was receiving so much press. However, I recall that the mainstream media and scientific journals continued to cover and publish his findings and opinions. I did not sense that there were gatekeepers who kept any variation from the consensus position out of view. It was simply the case that eventually the evidence for causation of AIDS by HIV was so overwhelming that scientists and the public lost interest in Deusberg. I recall reaching that point when testing blood to be used for transfusions for HIV eliminated transfusion-induced AIDS. After that, Deusberg’s hypotheses were do obviously disproved that they were no longer worth anyone’s time, and he faded away. It did not require position statements by scientific associations or active opposition to publishing his work or an enforced consensus. It happened in the natural course of doing science. I moved from the, “well as a scientist in another field, I trust climate scientists and they must be right about CAGW” to being a full blown skeptic on CAGW largely on the basis of the anti-scientific attitudes revealed by the Climategate files and then the totally anti-scientific response by leaders in climate science research to those revelations. When you are sure of science as a method of knowing and you are sure you are correctly interpreting the data (and that the data is reliable), you don’t need or want to keep anyone out of the conversation. Those who are wrong will be revealed when the data conclusively refute them. No real scientist should feel the need to do anything more to silence dissent than to continue to do his/her job.

Comments are closed.