I am concerned by climate scientists becoming climate activists, because scholars should not have a priori interests in the outcome of their studies. Likewise, I am worried about activists who pretend to be scientists, as this can be a misleading form of instrumentalization.
Ulf Büntgen
In the evolving discourse surrounding climate change, a critical conversation has emerged regarding the intersection of impassioned activism and the rigor of scientific inquiry. The recent article by Ulf Büntgen in “npj Climate Action“ articulates a pressing need to differentiate between climate science and climate activism. While Büntgen’s perspective is praiseworthy for recognizing the potential pitfalls of conflating these domains, it perhaps underestimates the extent to which climate science has been subsumed by ideological influences. This subtle yet pervasive ideological capture poses a more complex challenge than Büntgen acknowledges, necessitating a deeper exploration and a more robust response than the mere separation of roles.
Büntgen starts his argument with a fundamental concern about the role of scientists in the sphere of activism:
“I am concerned by climate scientists becoming climate activists, because scholars should not have a priori interests in the outcome of their studies.”
This statement underscores the importance of maintaining objectivity within scientific research. The integrity of scientific inquiry hinges on the ability of researchers to conduct studies without predetermined outcomes. However, the reality across many scientific disciplines, particularly in climate science, reveals a landscape where research is often driven, or at least shaded, by political and ideological motivations.
He also raises an alarm about the reverse scenario—activists posing as scientists:
“Likewise, I am worried about activists who pretend to be scientists, as this can be a misleading form of instrumentalization.”
While this is a valid concern, the issue runs deeper than individual activists overstepping boundaries. Institutional science itself has become a battleground where ideological narratives are frequently promoted under the guise of empirical neutrality. This misalignment not only misleads the public but also distorts policy debates, framing them within a context that may not fully align with the nuanced realities of scientific understanding.
Büntgen’s observation about the pace of scientific research compared to the rapid shifts in political and economic responses to climate issues further illustrates the disjunction between science and activism:
“It comes as no surprise that the slow production of scientific knowledge by an ever-growing international and interdisciplinary community of climate change researchers is not feasible to track the accelerating pace of cultural, political and economic perceptions of, and actions to the many threats anthropogenic global warming is likely to pose on natural and societal systems at different spatiotemporal scales.”
Here, Büntgen touches upon a critical disconnect; however, the underlying concern is that the scientific process—necessarily cautious and iterative—is being sidelined in favor of more immediate, policy-driven agendas that prioritize action over accuracy. This scenario fosters an environment where scientific data may be cherry-picked or presented with undue emphasis to support predetermined policy goals.
Moreover, his critique of the IPCC’s presentations of data suggests an awareness of the problematic dynamics within large scientific bodies:
“Moreover, I find it misleading when prominent organisations, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its latest summary for policymakers, tend to overstate scientific understanding of the rate of recent anthropogenic warming relative to the range of past natural temperature variability over 2000 and even 125,000 years.”
This point is crucial but warrants a deeper investigation into how such overstated claims serve broader narrative purposes. These narratives not only maintain a sense of urgency but also drive the policy machine that may not always be aligned with the most balanced or cautious scientific appraisal.
Büntgen rightly calls for a conceptual and practical separation between climate science and activism. This recommendation is foundational but should be considered the starting point for a broader re-evaluation of how climate science can extricate itself from the grip of activism and policy pressures without compromising the urgent need for societal engagement on climate issues.
To truly address the ideological capture of climate science, it is necessary to foster a culture of critical scrutiny and intellectual independence within the scientific community. Scientists must be encouraged to question dominant paradigms and explore alternative hypotheses without fear of professional ostracization or loss of funding. Additionally, there is a need for a transparent and rigorous peer review process that can withstand the pressures of political or ideological influence.
Furthermore, the media, policymakers, and the public must be educated on the complexities of climate science, emphasizing that scientific understanding evolves and that uncertainty is a natural and valuable aspect of scientific discourse. This understanding can help temper the often sensationalist portrayal of climate science in the media, which tends to amplify fears and simplify discussions to align with activist agendas.
In conclusion, while Büntgen’s article provides an important critique of the current state of climate science and activism, a more profound and systemic approach is required to untangle the complex web of influences that has shaped the field. Only through a rigorous recommitment to the principles of scientific inquiry and a vigilant defense against ideological influences can climate science hope to provide the objective guidance necessary for effective and rational policy-making. The challenge is not merely to separate science from activism but to ensure that science remains a beacon of inquiry, untainted by the exigencies of political and ideological campaigns.
The whole open access article is available here.
H/T Judith Curry
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Principles are long gone and it’s all about power for the usual suspects now-
‘Laughingstock of the world’: The left destroying US credibility (msn.com)
Biden is the perfect sock puppet teleprompt for them now along with gigglepot and elder abuse be damned!
The battle of ideas is entertaining, nevertheless.
Singapore’s PM is certainly finding it ‘entertaining’-
Singapore PM Lee Hsien Loong ‘completely right’ in criticism of woke movement (msn.com)
I could certainly entertain their rattan cane as the multicultural kinda bloke I am.
Andrew Dessler, climate scientist as lawyer advocate.
I think the IPCC fully embraced activism in 2000 when they endorsed MBH 98, Michael Mann’s infamous Hockey Stick paper. It very conveniently did away with any need to explain away the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period by simply denying they ever existed.
People are going to get tired of me repeating this, but here I go again anyway.
The IPCC has not abandoned neutrality to “embrace” activism.
The IPCC is required, by its terms of reference, to collate the most evidence of AGW it can. It was established by the UNFCCC specifically to build the best case for AGW. That is its job. It has never had an obligation to reject anything except what damages the case it is building. The IPCC is like a lawyer acting for AGW. It is not the IPCC’s job to also be the lawyer for the other side.
This is something the media cheer-leaders for the IPCC don’t get or choose to hide.
“Embrace activism” is a euphemism for jumping the shark into using dubious to the point of fraudulent studies to do propaganda.
I like the analogy, even if the defendant has committed the most heinous of crimes against humanity they still need representation. It’s just a shame the IPCC didn’t plead guilty in the beginning, we could of then got on with more important things.
The IPCC may not be required to consider all the facts before stating its findings BUT the public and the news media seem to perceive that it has.
This is a problem. Especially since the IPCC’s Executive Summaries overshadow inconvenient facts found in its own studies.
The IPCC is more than a lawyer for AGW; it is also the judge.
People are going to get tired of me repeating this, but here I go again anyway.
I’m already tired after the first time I read this claptrap.
Science is collecting evidence.
IPCC was dismissing (almost ignoring) all natural causes of global warming, described as “noise” in 1995, which is ignoring evidence.
Ignoring evidence is politics
IPCC is a political organization avoiding and evading all contrary evidence (natural causes of warming)
They started with the conclusion that warming was manmade and would be dangerous. No real science organization starts with a conclusion.
You are totally missing the main point. The IPCC does not do science. The IPCC does AGW. Period.
To bad the useful idiots of the world do not know that.
You can have a commitment to net zero and think it ethical but having seen the other story about the climate activist wanting deniers punished by law (and he works for the Government’s meteorological agency by the by) you must ignore the means of production and accept rigid state controls as a result. Perhaps only someone in a sedentary occupation and working for the state can do this? This hot, sweaty ranter is the modern equivalent of the man with the sandwich board proclaiming the time of the end.The persistent threats of Putin and MAD seem more persuasive to me only a maniac could ignore that in support of his termination thesis.
And once the IPCC endorsed liars and cheats any scientist of integrity thinking to complain about the state of things knew exactly what would happen to them. Sadly only the truly brave among them have stayed faithful to the science and that is why individual integrity is so important in everything humans undertake. It isn’t the first time science has been led by the baddies but it is the first time it has done so with that creature called the Internet in a dubious marriage she never wanted or even agreed to.
That is what you get when amateurs are put in charge of important stuff..
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/Hurricanes/more/Landsea-letter-resigning-from-IPCC.pdf
But, who decides who is the expert? Amateurs have always had an important role in science, which is a process, not an end.
Yet we solved the problem through statistical analysis, and showing the Medieval warming was global in innumerable research projects that passed the dodgy peer review process. Given that Mann is still trying to prove his lost case, even taking people to court, really means he has never faced up to scientific reality. He is the ideological Warrior for the IPCC’s sleazy campaign of misinformation on climate change, which has given the world so many unjustified headaches to date.
I am optimistic that empirical science will eventually win out, but not before many politicians and activists will dine out on the carcass of western democracy, given up by foolish governments.
He won, remember? And, given the ridiculous judgement, the alarmist viewpoint is simply the current orthodoxy.
It’s going to appeal.
It was a DC jury. Enough said.
Not sure which is worse, a D.C. jury or a NYC jury.
My hope is that empirical science wins out before irreparable damage is inflicted on humanity.
Many sort of irreparable damages have been inflicted on humanity over the past several millennial. Eventually the inflictors lose power and the, generally slow and painful, process of recovery begins. Possibly the damage may one day be too total for real recovery, even after the noxious power declines.
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
There have been a number of studies proving just how wrong your statement is.
Then cite one. If you can.
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
There have been a number of studies proving just how wrong your statement is.
Mann never denied they existed.They’re just not global phenomenon.
Read bobclose above. Mann cherry picked his data to endorse his conclusion that the IPCC orthodoxy could not handle explaining the MWP or LIA.
Given his behavior since 1998, he has proven himself to be a True Believer.
No, that’s false. He never hid any of his data, and it’s been in the public domain since publication. Subsequently, multiple researchers have confirmed his results.
Mann never retracted MBH98 after McIntyre and McKittrick discovered the minor little feature his algorithm produces hockey sticks from red noise..
Why would Mann retract? McIntyre and McKittrick were wrong.
You certainly seem to have an idea about the data that Mann refused to make public that is inconsistent with the findings of a number of real researchers.
’ Real Researchers’ ? Who?
W.B. has a Mann crush.
I do like scientists who publish their work in top scientific journals. I do not like dissemblers who offer only unsupported opinions.
He would not allow discovery in his Canadian case which he lost because of that. Are you that dense.
So what?
He hid his data. A researcher finally got UVA to release his Fortran and data and he was unable to replicate Mann’s results.
Multiple scientific expeditions went to over 6000 sites, both northern and southern hemisphere and got ice cores, bore cores, and sediment samples and proved the hockey stick is bogus.
When you read the “Climategate” emails, all of them, you see that your statement cannot be defended.
You will not find ANYTHING in the scientific literature that disagrees with my statement. Which is all that matters.
evidence says otherwise, especially the 1000 year cycle.
What evidence?
__________________________________________________________
How ’bout a simple rephrase of that:
The Importance of distinguishing Bullshit from Truth.
People outside the Tropics probably spend about 95% of the time in temperature-controlled environments, anyway. They also can add clothes when it is cold and remove clothes when it is hot.
Millions of people live happily in all kinds of long-term climates from Anchorage Alaska, which has a July average of 14F( -10C) to Dubai Saudi Arabia which has an average July temperature of 106F(41C).
Having been there June 21st 2007, “July average of 14F( -10C)” is most certainly incorrect. 62° / 55° is closer to the truth.
Oops, that should read January, not July. Thanks.
Absolutely gorgeous here today.. first time we have seen all-on blue sky for probably 3 weeks.
Took the dog for a walk down the caravan park, closed for camping, so I let her off the lease.
She had a great little run, while I had a leisurely walking on a beautiful Autumn day (around 22C)
This climate stuff is sure tough !! 😉
Hey, now you def have to start worrying about heatstress. Like EVERYTIME the weather improves..
Anchorage Alaska is not all that cold, it is Fairbanks where is get interesting. Coming from native Minnesotan and spent many years on the North Dakota and is subzero winter winds. I now live where the average July and August temps are 107 F I will take that over below zero ever night for a 70 nights a year. I have experience -50 and 72 hours of nothing warmer outside than -22 F. I have also grilled a turkey with charcoal in -20 weather but need six inches if fiber glass insulation on the grill to pull it off.
“Büntgen rightly calls for a conceptual and practical separation between climate science and activism. This recommendation is foundational but should be considered the starting point for a broader re-evaluation of how climate science can extricate itself from the grip of activism and policy pressures without compromising the urgent need for societal engagement on climate issues.’
Yeah, but shouldn’t we back up even farther to investigate if there is any need for urgency for engagement on climate issues, or if there are any climate issues at all? Write me a clear proof of issues with climate. Don’t just tell me there was a big sandstorm in the Emirates and it rained a lot in Norfolk. So far, all we got is we should be better prepared for bad weather that happens all the time. Judy, bless her heart can’t seem to take that last step away from the climate boogyman invented by the ideologues.
Follow the money. What pays for the climatologists and modelers and who?
He who controls the money controls.
In reality there is now no chance of eliminating activism from climate science. It was born from acitivism in the 60s and 70s and it only got worse as the power base of the UN was subverted into political and economic climate activism.
The only solution now is to trash the lot and defund all parts of the UN that are involved in this corruption. Then we can try to forget to entire catastrophe and avoid the collapse of Western civilisation.
Agreed.
Universities are now cranking out activists – e.g. George Mason’s “Climate Communication” degrees. Short on physics or chemistry these programs are for students who applied for that course of study because they were already “believers” (activists).
If they DO communicate anything, the MSM treats them as “Climate Scientists”.
Already “believers”? There’s no ‘belief” about it. AGW is mainstream science, as robust as DNA, evolution, relativity, or earth orbits the sun. Get over it.
CAGW is like Eugenics.
No such thing as CAGW. It’s a made up term.
If you had stopped with “defund all parts of the UN”, you would have been even more accurate.
We did, Mark, but the CCP stepped in to cover the tab
The Journal Science has been advocating this for years
Since “climate science” is an oxymoron, I don’t consider their output as very important to increasing scientific knowledge.
There really is no such thing as climate science. There are a great variety of sciences that are involved in understanding the climate, true, but only modelers and climatologists and those are not much better than astrologers (in my opinion).
This is not new. Some of us have expressed similar thoughts over and over, mine since 1992.
….
What is newer is the opening up of major matters where correct science has been deliberately corrupted by wealth and power. An excellent example is from decades of investigation by Prof Edward Calabrese of the LNT theory, Linear No Threshold, relating harm from toxins to their doses. Much regulatory activity accepts LNT, which is at the roots of some science topics leading to, for example, the rules about radioactive harm when new reactors are built.
You simply cannot make regulations based on corrupted science. The faulty rules have to go, the Establishment has to change its favoured thoughts, those perps involved in the corruption need exposure to the punitive legal system.
With LNT, little is being done apart from the efforts of Calabrese and colleagues. The several agencies that should be stating formal proceedings seem to be doing the trendy 2020s act of saying nothing while working out how to protect themselves.
LNT is a neat example that the honest science community should use as a pilot case to set up a new pathway to preserving scientific integrity. I suspect that many readers here know just what I am talking about and even have their own proposed ways, be it an overarching Truth-in-Science Commission or a case for RICO application or a customary US Supreme Court hearing.
Most of us hate criminal actions that hurt our expectations of an enjoyable and rewarding life. Scientists are no different, though maybe we are more reserved.
But, action is needed. Criminal corruption in science could be increasing, with allegations about Covid science in particular. Something has to be done before society comes to believe that lies are now acceptable conduct in daily life and in science. That looming threat is a point of no return.
Geoff S
I have read Calabrese’s work and been fascinated about the complex “hormesis” that occurs in many forms and places. Very true that it’s not just climate as some of us have pointed out and it is leaving a residue of slime as they let the worms out. As Twain said something like history doesn’t repeat itself but rhymes. Oxymoronic policies like Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity, as we had on our university stationery, student evaluation during the course, education as a separate discipline for teaching like the new “communication science,” and others I forget,were well predicted by the “old salts” to have serious ramifications. Specifics like DEI proved them prescient. I was simply educated by them and many of us wondered if we could have done more to prevent it. Many talented teachers quit and those that stayed need big medals.
There was a joke in marine science that someday we would have “underwater basket weaving courses” but turns out that would require more discipline and intellect than some we have now.
When you publicly state that you want to support “the cause”, then you have already been compromised with an information bias.
It doesn’t matter what “the cause” is. You already believe in it. Re-read Eric Hoffer’s excellent 1951 book, “The True Believer”.
“A movement is pioneered by men of words, materialized by fanatics and consolidated by men of actions.” -Eric Hoffer
I only wish some wealthy conservatives would fund a movie portraying Climategate. Of course most well known actors are liberals- who might not want the job- but I think for enough $$$ they’ll be happy to do it. So, assuming that, who’d play Mickey Mann?
“Mikey” Moore.
Possibly- Moore is fat and stupid looking. They can make him look bald.
The problem is that scientists are not qualified or have the experience to assess climate or climate change. From my look at articles on climate no scientist understands the engineering subjects of Dimensional Analysis, Fluid Dynamics, Heat & Mass transfer or Thermodynamics. Scientists are poor on mathematics and have little concept of statistics or relevant correlation. Of course scientists have no idea of capital and operating costs. Because of their lack of technical knowledge they have to lie and make up stories to get published and then get equally ignorant other scientists to review their work as a return favour.
Understanding the 2nd law of Thermodynamics and having some experience with heat balances (ie 1st law of thermodynamics) is all that is required to know that CO2 plays no part changing Earth’s climate. Money and politics are the basis of AGW (or now called climate change)
Cement,
IMO, not quite so. People are not born to be either scientists or non-scientists. I started out in Aeronautical Engineering, spent time in fertilizer/pant nutrition then spent some decades in mineral exploration and mining science, ending up in large company management. I have known some engineers well capable in science, and vice versa. The science ingredients that matter have been eloquently described by Richard Feynman. Any person can abide by them. The puzzle is why so many do not – and why so many failed folk end up as regulators.
The shift that I discern over five decades that worries me sees fewer talented people working for scientific advancement, working instead in mindless support of bad science because there is a quid in it.
Geoff S
If you can’t do it- teach it- if you can’t teach it- regulate it.
The whole GHE is based on speculation and hypotheses. It can be theorised but then observational data is a problem as you cannot distinguish A fr B as one can in a lab and apply it to Earth’s atmosphere. It always comes back to an assumed energy balance mechanism. GHE remains..well..problematic at a physics level.
I think its better to scrap the whole GHE theory and just concentrate on standard concepts of physics..
“I think its better to scrap the whole GHE theory”
Even better to scrap your nonsense.
Good grief, man. The GHE was discovered in mid-19th century by Tyndall and Eunice Foote, and quantified in 1896 by Arrhenius. It’s standard physics. You’ve lost all credibility before you even got started on your Denier rants.
Wrong. I am not going to repost. It is in a different article.
Good grief. Are you that ignorant?The GHE is an established theory. There is no scientific research that debunks the GHE, nor can you find any
Arguably, the start of this conundrum can be traced to Stephan Schneider’s infamous quote:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.“
Even if as some have argued, this quote is taken out of context; there is no doubt in my mind that “scientists” like Micheal Mann and Phil Jones took it quite literally.
“having some experience with heat balances (ie 1st law of thermodynamics) is all that is required to know that CO2 plays no part changing Earth’s climate.”
You must have studied
ThermoDUMBnamics
because that is the statement
of a science dingbat.
Oh dear.
RG shows he is as clueless about thermodynamics as he is on most other science and/or engineering to do with climate… or anything.
The statement happens to be absolutely correct, and RG knows he cannot provide evidence to the contrary… so has a little tantrum.
Lol! No scientist understands Fluids?? Or Thermodynamics? You’ve got to be kidding. Those are the foundation of key aspects of the science. Your claim is absurd.
Your error is to identifying computer modelers and climatologists as scientists.
You are also correct that in general scientists are not experts in statistics.
You are also correct that in general scientists are not experts in business and finance.
But your points are not really about scientists, but rather those gender identifying as “climate scientists.”
This might get interesting to see if he lights a fuse of community outrage for the principle of critical thinking-
Teacher sacked after encouraging student to use critical thinking (msn.com)
PS: Something’s going down for the woke BS artists and usual suspects-
‘Defunding DEI’: Rita Panahi applauds UNC for ‘big step’ in the right direction (msn.com)
the climate grifters have created a cult to generate scary stories in order to fleece the gullible. Right from the beginning, the IPCC started up the Church of the Satanic Gases.
Ulf Büntgen piece is a masterwork and should be read in full by everyone — readers here, all involved in any way in CliSci policy, climate media people — everyone.
We needn’t agree with his view of how climate is or isn’t changing — he is absolutely spot on on the effects of Climate Alarmism activists who pretend to be scientists and Climate Scientists who market themselves as, and act as, Climate alarm activists.
Better go read the latest WSJ expose on widespread publication fraud and the paper mill industry.
Flood of Fake Science Forces Multiple Journal Closures – WSJ
Hmm maybe call then “scietivists” activists with science credentials … they all practice “opience” which is opinion wrapped up in scientific jargon …