Climate alarmism versus integrity at National Academies of Science

Reposted from CFACT

Climate alarmism versus integrity at National Academies of Science

By David Wojick |June 28th, 2020|Climate

National Academies of Science should speak out against climate alarmism, not support it. This is the major message in a recent letter from Professor Guus Berkhout, president of CLINTEL, to the new head of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. The integrity of science is at stake.

This letter is a model for how all alarmist National Academies should be addressed. For example, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is painfully alarmist. Even worse, NAS has been joined in promoting alarmism by its two siblings, the National Academies of Engineering and Medicine. The fact that these Academies have become a servant of supranational political organizations such as IPCC shows how serious the crisis in climate science really is.

The Netherlands Academy is called KNAW, from its Dutch name. KNAW was established in 1808 as an advisory body to the government, a task it still performs today. NAS was established by Congress in 1868. Both NAS and KNAW derive their authority from their high profile members, rigorously selected top scientists from a large range of scientific fields. Professor Berkhout is a member of KNAW.

The letter is addressed to Prof. Dr. Ineke Sluiter, President of KNAW. It begins with a clear statement of the issue:

I am addressing you in your capacity as the new President of the KNAW because the climate issue is escalating. The IPCC and the associated activist climate movement have become highly politicised. Sceptical scientists are being silenced. As an IPCC expert reviewer, I critically looked at the latest draft climate report. My conclusion is that there is little evidence of any intent to discover the objective scientific truth.

Though IPCCs doomsday scenarios are far from representative of reality, they play an important role in government climate policy. Only courageous individuals dare to point out that the predictions of the IPCCs computer models of climate have not come to pass, in that contemporary measurements contradict them. IPCCs confidence in its own models does not match the real-world outturn. In the past, scientific societies such as ours would have sounded the alarm. (Emphasis added.)

In your interview with Elsevier Weekblad (6 June 2020) you say: Dutch science should be proud of itself” and, a little later, A hallmark of high-quality research must be a wide variety of viewpoints – fewer dogmas, more viewpoints.” I agree. Unfortunately, your observations do not seem to apply to climate science. There, diversity is suppressed and the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) dogma is promoted. That is why I am writing to you.”

After discussing the well known problems with the IPCC science, Professor Berkhout states his case:

Why do scientific institutions not warn society that all these climate-change doom and gloom scenarios have little or no scientific justification? I know that there are many scientists around the world who doubt or disagree with the IPCCs claims. I also know from my own experience and from correspondence with colleagues that there is much pressure on researchers to conform to what we are told is the climate consensus”. But the history of science shows time and again that new insights do not come from followers but from critical thinkers. For valid new insights, measurements trump models.

The KNAW, as the guardian of science, must surely take action now. The more governments invest in expensive climate policies in the name of climate science, the more difficult it becomes to point out that climate science in its present state falls a long way short of providing any justification for such policies. There are more and more indications that things are not right. If the scientific community waits for the dam to burst, the damage to science will be enormous. Society will then rightly ask itself the question: why were the Academies of Sciences silent? Surely there has been enough warning from scientific critics of the official position?

The KNAW must, of course, stay clear of politics and focus on excellence in finding the truth. But I repeat that the KNAW is also the guardian of science. In climate policy in particular, science is abused on a global scale. How can one plausibly state, on such a highly complex subject as the Earths climate, that the science is settled”? That is not excellence: it is stupidity.”

There is a lot more and the letter ends with a specific proposal from CLINTEL:

I propose to organise an international open blue-team/red-team meeting together with the KNAW, in which both teams can present their scientific views†. These discussions could be the start of a new era in climate science. Audiatur et altera pars.”

The US National Academy of Sciences is a lot worse than KNAW in this regard. Not only does NAS not speak out against the anti-scientific climate movement, it openly supports it. I know there are skeptical members of NAS, probably many. They need to speak out, just as Professor Berkhout has done.

Nothing less than the integrity of science is at stake. Failure to acknowledge the scientific climate change debate is making science look like a political tool. This can only turn out badly for science.

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy.

For origins see http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/ Available for confidential research and consulting.

Advertisements

68 thoughts on “Climate alarmism versus integrity at National Academies of Science

  1. The difficulty with the red team/blue team is that the blue team won’t show up. They will just snipe from sidelines and declare that the science is settled.

    • “The difficulty with the red team/blue team is that the blue team won’t show up. They will just snipe from sidelines and declare that the science is settled.”

      That’s why the Dutch Climate Dialogue site went cold: the warmists ducked like a quack™. But they wouldn’t be able to duck if a high-minded and respectable venue like the Oxford Union invited them to participate. If warmists ducked that it would look bad—so they wouldn’t.

      (Some are ready to participate—e.g., Mann and ex-Admiral Tetley (sp?) debated Curry and Moore in Charleston WV within the past 12 months.)

      The OU would surely host such debates if a foundation or government (or Big Oil?) paid its expenses and/or made a donation to its endowment. Funding would be needed, because the confrontation should not consist of one big debate, but of a series of debates over the course of a week on some of the many subtopics of the issue. Further, a debate-series should be held every year. The debate should be as technical and scientific as each subtopic deserves. I presume videos could be posted on YouTube.

      I argued for such an arrangement at length in a comment at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/08/climate-litigation-big-oil-must-fight-on-the-science-or-die/#comment-3013114 on Christopher Monckton’s thread, “Big Oil must fight on the science or die”

      • Red team / Blue team analysis is not about armchair debates. It requires in depth, written analysis by two independent teams.

        Kudos to Prof Berkhout for speaking out but I fear it is already too late for integrity in science. Political corruption of academia is now to entrenched that the only resistance is from a dying generation of retired seniors who are old enough to remember what integrity is and what science USED to mean.

        • I agree, the “integrity-in-science” pendulum has done swung too far off-center to the “left” to ever swing back.

          Collapse is inevitable ……. because it is impossible to re-nurture/re-educate the past three (3) generations of the populace.

          • I wa cancelled from the Alumni list at the University of British Columbia a couple of years ago after the UBC alumni magazine published an entire edition based Alexandria Ocasio Cortes’ “12 Years to save the World” garbage that she later retracted.

            I wrote in to UBC and told them that they were hugely out of line in publishing a fawning over the top support of scientific musings a bartender. What do I know though? I only have an M.Sc. in Earth Science.

            I never received another copy of the UBC alumni magazine after that. I think the UBC needs to change it’s name to something more PC. The Columbia thing an offensive reference to Christopher Columbus.

            Two can play at this game.

          • Integrity is less like a pendulum than like a switch. Like being pregnant, you either are or are not.
            Of course it is possible, for a while, to conceal your loss of integrity, but given time, it will start to show.
            It is infinitely harder to regain trust than to keep it undamaged.

  2. Didn’t the NAS just invite Mann as a member? I’m afraid this is how all these once august institutions were taken over. When the Iron Curtain came down and freedom rushed in, unnoticed were the apparatchiks who skulked out and began taking over NGOs and working there way into and up to the top of influential institutions, universities, etc.

    The next step was bringing in products of the repurposed education system. The latter most likely totally unaware of what they are serving. Eventually they will have a quorum. I sure would like to see what happens to such letters. It will be instructive.

  3. There’s money in climate alarmism.

    There’s no money in celebrating global warming and the greening of our planet.

    325 years of global warming and no one was harmed.

    We have the most pleasant climate since the 1600s.

    But leftists WANT a crisis, whose alleged cure is a strong central government, which they have always wanted.

    So they invented the coming climate crisis, which is always coming, but never shows up.

    The government buys the “science” it wants.

    Cigarette companies used to do that.

    • The government is responsible. 30 years ago they started funding Global Warming at the expense of all other research. Every proposal started having “and its effects on Global Warming” included in order to have a chance. Soon, prospective researchers had to talk the talk and walk the walk to keep from starving.

      • William,
        Do you have any actual data to support that? Can you name a single country where there is more money going into global warming research than any other area of science? The UK for example recently spent 120 million on 4 quantum technology hubs, 50 million on a graphene research centre while climate change got about 10 million for a couple of research centres.

          • Izaak, money allocated for building “research centers” is but a drop-in-the-bucket compared to funding Research Grants.

        • If you drill down into the UK’s DfID (Department for International Development) projects you would find that many are ‘contracted’ out to environmental organisations and NGOs such as Greenpeace. Under the radar funding for them ?

          For example one such I looked at was a multi-million DfID project to ‘help China invest in Africa’ was contracted to a Scottish based environmental group who then sub-contracted it to Greenpeace. (£9.8m from memory)

        • I don’t think that’s what William said. The obscene monies poured into the phony Climate crusade is a waste (to put it politely) and should be better directed into research concerned with the real World. Doesn’t matter that it was more or less than other funding.
          …”at the expense of all other research.” holds true.

          Eamon.

      • Although the government is responsible, we picked the government. So guess what? You are and I am. We listened to the promises and bought the scam holus bolus. We got the government we deserved.

        • We picked some politicians and inherited a primarily leftist “deep state” of bureaucrats who seem to make their own laws, working with Democrat appointed judges.

          CONGRESS no longer seems necessary to make laws.

    • Richard,
      The market capitalisation of Saudi Aramco is 1.7 trillion. While in the top ten companies by revenue there are 6 oil and gas companies with a combine annual revenue of over 2 trillion dollars and profits of 178 billion. Hence the claim that there is no money in “celebrating global warming” is wrong and in fact it
      is exceedingly profitable. I would like to see comparable figures for “climate alarmism”.

      • So selling a product that people want and makes everyone’s lives better is “celebrating global warming”? Really?

        Regardless, since global warming is a good thing, why shouldn’t it be celebrated?

      • Izaak, I wouldn’t call a profit of 9% exceedingly profitable. I’d say it’s pretty normal, in fact it will probably be a bit lower this year. It’s just normal business….

    • Come on Zoe, every one is aware of the geothermal gradient (geologist here) and many looked at that. It’s there, but it is, on average, too small an effect.

      A heat emission of some 20 trillion watts from the earth has been estimated. Sounds like a lot, but it amounts to only 0.039W/sq. meter, insignificant. Did you, in fact, know that number? If not, you just added to your knowledge on geothermal. I even wondered about cosmic microwave background as a partial heat source which constantly irradiates the earth. Yeah, microwaves concentrated enough csn cook your food, but it, too doesn’t rate as a global warmer.

      The thing is Zoe, you can’t convince anyone here if you can’t provide a quantitative argument on why it is important. Just hammering away on words and insults all the time doesn’t get you far. Indeed, you insult yourself by suggesting that low level information of the kind you provide would be satisfactory to yourself on all subjects. Show us, we are wrong. Afterall WUWT has won global awards as the best science site, not just climate science.

      • Gary Pearse:

        Zoe is correct, as you will eventually find out!

        And regarding WUWT, I have a contrarian analysis which they refuse to print.

        • Chemtrails? Weather caused by Jupiter’s gravity? Epicycles of one thing and another (4 parameters and you can model an elephant, 5 and you can have him wiggle his trunk?), Atmospheric gravity causes it all? …. They let some of this stuff in early on and there was no end to phlogiston out there. Persistent folk like Zoe phin who has one fixation and can’t be engaged in discussion, is free to present her thing over and over and over. She’s moderately abusive but harmless.

          No other site I know of gives commenters the leeway that WUWT does. Can you imagine any climate alarum sites inviting sceptics to present! Only the faithful are welcome there. WUWT has invited pretty much everyone at the top of the consensus game to present here and some have come at least to comment. This is why very serious scientists do come here and it is no contest that WUWT is recognized globally as the best. The science literate crowd are tough, though, so one better have a ‘take’ that they can defend.

    • Let me see if I have this straight. According to you, anyone who doesn’t accept your theories as complete and utter truth, has no integrity.

      Are you going to be claiming that everyone actually agrees with you, it’s just that for some nefarious reasons we choose to keep that agreement hidden?

      Or are you redefining the word integrity the way you have redefined so many other words?

    • Zoe
      Has anyone actually proved your theory / findings to be wrong. Or do they simply believe that you are wrong.

  4. Excellent letter from Professor Berkhout, as usual.
    I always follow his writings which are published on a regular basis via Clintel and climategate.nl.
    Hopefully Prof. Ineke Sluiter is more open to this argument than the previous president of the KNAW, Robert Dijkgraaf who, although a good scientist (as far as I know), was fully committed to the IPCC party line.

      • The mission statement of the IPCC is “providing the world with objective, scientific information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of the risk of human-induced climate change”.
        “Human-induced” is at the very root of their mission statement, it’s not even open for (scientific) discussion. Scientific truth is only useful for them if it supports their policy, otherwise it will be hindered or ignored. That’s also why their report for policy makers is completely different than the main report where scientists had a word to say about it. They’re not interested in the truth.

  5. Obama’s OSTP/Science advisor John Holdren groomed the current NAS President to that position, helping her get to AAAS Science Mag Editor in Chief then on to the NAS. Her loyalty to climate scam is what has gotten her where she is now. Of course, I’m talking about Marcia McNutt. She was probably supposed to only be the NAS President for a year before being picked to be Hillary’s WH OSTP/Science Advisor to the President in 2017. Luckily that of course didn’t happen. Sadly, she still could be Senile Joe’s OSTP. She is an alarmist climate Quack as there is today. As long as she is the NAS President, nothing there is going to change re: the climate scam and alarmism.

  6. So who are you going to believe? An adorable and earnestly sincere Swedish school girl or this Dutch dude?

  7. Off topic: Did I miss something? The Daily Corona Virus Graph Page hasn’t been updated since 6/22. Is everything OK with Willis Eschenbach? ???

  8. I laugh at the virtue signalers’ ‘Science is Real’

    Uh huh, Bro, would you know it?
    ——————-
    ——————-

  9. Most of the exspurts these are merely drips working under pressure; but they are certainly articulate in their pontifications. Sorry, I have gone cynical in my old age; but not without just cause methinks. I reckon most of the pressure comes from the UN/Davos Consensus Gang which now controls a compliant Media. Conspiracy Theory or not; but it does seem to fit in with my observations.

  10. Truth coming forth – I think Moore’s film shook something loose – cause this is the second article admitting excess – since his film.

    • I think this film got the message home to many activists who never really took the time to analyse what the environmental consequences of unreliables and biomass would really be. A lot of them wouldn’t bother to read something, but a film turned out to be an ideal way to get their attention. That’s also why green organisations tried so hard to get it offline.

  11. Excellent post; very encouraging.

    I especially appreciated this quote: “… For valid new insights, measurements trump models. …”

    • I have to post this, think it is open access, modeler has discovered that the ocean is 3-dimensional, been doing 2 for at least two decades. I was introduced to 3-D model concept around mid-70s, difficult to do then when you had to understand them and poor computer power. Seems that they went to the moon.

      Scavia, D., et al., 2019. Hypoxic volume is more responsive than hypoxic area to nutrient load reductions in the northern Gulf of Mexico—and it matters to fish and fisheries. Environmental Research Letters.14(2)024012. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf938

      PNAS by the way is an equal opportunity/affirmative action publisher.

    • Times like this are interspersed through out history. It is a bit amazing to see how far the left is pushing everything right now. Look at this insane “the Russians may have paid bounties” which just popped up out of nowhere. Why would the Russians do such a thing? What would they gain? I just read on CNBC that Bolton is now claiming that he shared this Russia/bounty story with Trump in Feb 2019. The story sounds so phony, but no hard evidence is needed as the mere claim and the thousand ifs prove that something might have happened in the minds of the lefties and brainwashed youth of today.

      • Senate Minority Leader Shumer said to Trump: IF you knew about this, then shame on you.

        Shumer doesn’t need any evidence to convict Trump.

        This is just another distortion of reality by the New York Times. Give it a few days and the real truth will come out.

        The Propaganda Machine that is the News Media continues to try to undermine the President of the United States for political gain. Even Fox News Channel treats these Leftwing Lies as legitimate even though it has been shown that they have been lying about Trump since before he was elected. At least the nighttime Fox hosts are still hanging with Trump. The daytime and weekend crews, not so much, although the morning Fox and Friends show is the best program of them all for being fair and balanced.

        President Trump is one of the best presidents we have ever had, and one of the most honest, and yet he has been under constant attack from the Left and the Leftwing Media from the day he announced his candidacy. It’s amazing the forces arrayed against Trump, yet Trump still fights through it.

        The American Left has become a danger to our freedoms and our Republic. The only way for us to be rid of this danger is for the American people to vote these scroundrels out of Office in November. It’s now or never.

        • Tom
          “President Trump is one of the best presidents we have ever had, and one of the most honest”
          Well the first part of that is your opinion and I’ll give you that, but you cannot say he is honest. If he is one of the most honest of presidents what does that say about the rest? Maybe, for starters, ask his wife how honest he was about sleeping with a porn star?

          • Truth. You want the rtuth.I recently saw a news story, that may be true, that Stormy Danieks said she made it up and it was run by her lawyer Avenetti.

            Wikipedia (for what it’s worth)
            Avenatti represented adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in her lawsuits against President Donald Trump in an attempt to void a non-disclosure agreement she had signed. Avenatti also represented Daniels in a related defamation suit against Trump. Before Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed, Avenatti introduced a written declaration in September 2018 accusing Kavanaugh of spiking drinks at parties for the purpose of allowing girls to be gang raped when he was in high school.[9] The accuser later repudiated the declaration in an interview with NBC News, claiming Avenatti had misrepresented her allegations.[10]

            On several occasions starting in March 2019, Avenatti was indicted in California and New York on federal counts including tax evasion, extortion, fraud, and embezzlement. In June 2019, the State Bar of California filed a proceeding to “involuntarily” enroll Avenatti as an inactive attorney—in effect, to suspend him from practicing law in California—based on evidence that, according to the State Bar, could lead to Avenatti’s disbarment.[11] Avenatti had denied all the charges. On February 14, 2020, Avenatti was convicted of all charges against him in the New York court. Avenatti was held in New York’s Metropolitan Correctional Center while he awaited sentencing for his extortion conviction in the New York case. He faces potentially more than 40 years in prison.

          • Jon Jewett,
            Avenatti is a scum bag. That is true. But Trump also had affairs with two woman in the sex industry. Why do you think his lawyer Cohen is in prison? I mean you don’t pay hush money unless you have done the crime. So the smoke screen of Avenatti has no bearing on Trumps honesty.

          • “but you cannot say he is honest. If he is one of the most honest of presidents what does that say about the rest? ”

            I can say Trump is honest, as far as illegality goes. Trump has been the most scrutinized president in history. They are scrtinizing him at this very moment. Yet for all their efforts, the Democrats haven’t been able to show Trump has done anything illegal. So now, since the Demcrats can’t find anything illegal to tag him with, they just make things up, like Russian collusions stories.

            No other president has been put under the microscope like Trump, so it’s hard to compare him to other presidents as far as who has acted legally. We don’t know much about past presidents in this regard. We know everything about Trump.

            And the Stormy Daniels story is just another made-up lie by the Left. There is no evidence Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels. Trump denies he did. Do you have any evidence to prove otherwise? Answer: No, you don’t. You should stop peddling this falsehood unless you can back it up with evidence, Simon.

          • Tom
            “No other president has been put under the microscope like Trump”
            That is probably true, but no other president has said or done the dumb stuff he has. Given that he does get things so wrong so often ( just this week tweeting the video of the guy saying white power) shouldn’t he be held to account? I say it would be unethical not to.

            “And the Stormy Daniels story is just another made-up lie by the Left”
            Tom, he paid her off. Sorry, but Trump does not part with money unless he has to. Why on earth do you think Cohen is in prison? You think Cohen would plead guilty if it wasn’t true? Boy you have a weird take on truth.

          • “You think Cohen would plead guilty if it wasn’t true?”

            Please explain what Cohen is guilty of in relation with Trump.

          • Niceguy
            “Please explain what Cohen is guilty of in relation with Trump.”
            I’m pleased you asked that question….
            Cohen officially surrendered to the FBI on August 21, 2018.[161] That afternoon, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight criminal[162] charges: five counts of tax evasion, one count of making false statements to a financial institution, one count of willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution at the request of a candidate (Trump) for the “principal purpose of influencing [the] election”.

            I’d say that involves Mr Trump wouldn’t you?

      • “Bolton is now claiming that he shared this Russia/bounty story with Trump in Feb 2019”

        Then why wasn’t it in his book?

    • Well put and very, very true.

      But it is our fault, we let our schools be taken over by teachers with very little training, no knowlege of history, and easily influenced by others. Faddists all. Now we have to deal with what they have done to our children.
      Same thing happened with our newspapers and our television channels.

  12. “ How can one plausibly state, on such a highly complex subject as the Earth’s climate, that “the science is settled”? That is not excellence: it is stupidity.”

    I LIKE this guy

  13. I find all this a bit sudden and encouraging:

    ‘I am Brian’

    ‘No, I am Brian’

    ‘we’re both Brian’

    Let us hope it continues.

  14. “The integrity of science is at stake.”
    This was the case about three (perhaps four) decades ago. At that time the integrity of science was tied to a stake and burned.
    If the Engineering sciences weren’t so unavoidably rooted in empiricism there would be nothing left.

  15. We picked some politicians and inherited a primarily leftist “deep state” of bureaucrats who seem to make their own laws, working with Democrat appointed judges.

    CONGRESS no longer seems necessary to make laws.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *