I found the climate pledge “to mitigate climate dis/misinformation” and Pielke’s perspective interesting. Each side accuses the other of promoting dis/misinformation. A less polemic-enabling pledge would be to promote climate data and climate science with the goal of an informed public. This is similar to Pielke’s own criticism of endorsing political candidates except it is at the level of endorsing political narratives, not candidates. The climate change narratives promoted by the right and left include dis/misinformation. In recent years, I’ve shared many such examples from both sides in my own monthly Weather and Climate Letter.
"Scientific membership organizations have every right to act as politically as their members desire..." But do members actually vote on these issues or are they primarily expressed by leadership that is "captured" by their own upwardly mobile striving to insert themselves on the pointy end of the Progressive Pecking Order. Didn't the American Physical Society assert that Anthropogenic Warming was as real as a molecular weight and as indisputable? And of course all of this cloaked thinly in language that inevitably ascribes social urgency to a scientific conclusion. It's a shame more physicists aren't involved in Climate research given the broad bands of uncertainty involved and what to do with chaotic relationships. So what is this APS statement achieving? Has anyone tried reading Scientific American lately? They simply said: the debate is over. The most crucial tool governments have to make our lives conform in every aspect to their dictates (Co2 emissions) is off the table for discussion. Thank you Science!
Dr Fauci is a great example of a scientist who have been judged by politicians / for political reasons. If politicians (and people) let politics guide their science, then science needs to step in to guide politics. Science alone cannot rule a society (because science is not a tool for that) but neither so can politics in a science vacuum, in a society which depends so much on science and respect for science, to function.
The credibility of these societies and journals depends on their disinterested approach to the evidence in their field of expertise. When they weigh in on subjective political questions, they are open to charges of "platforming", i.e., using the organization's credibility to advance their leadership's political preferences. The editors of Nature hijacked the journal's prestige to signal their distaste for Donald Trump. As Zhang found, they damaged their credibility with millions of Americans who will no longer trust them.
It is Democrats and democratic affiliated "scientists" who are struggling mightily to shut him down, some even want to jail him for the inter-generational crime of "posting data" and "fostering open debate".
Its his team that is corrupting and destroying science, everything he rails against here on THB.
They are the entire reason there is a THB in the first place.
Roger, you beat me by 2 years! My wife and I moved to Woodland Park, Colorado, in 1988. I was amazed and pleased to find there their were more registered independents in Colorado than Republicans or Democrats. I registered as an independent and remain non-affiliated 36 years later after retiring to South Carolina.
Valid points. Though couldn't similar arguments be made, albeit obliquely, about individual scientists advocating for a specific issue, and if so, should the Issue Advocate role you proposed in your book have more caveats? In other words, is there a risk that trust in science and scientists could be negatively impacted by issue advocacy, even if one could adhere to its idealized standards?
Issue advocacy is very much the default stance for all of us. Honest brokering and science arbitrating require institutions (except for the most simple of contexts - eg, tornado politics).
Consider that several readers unsubscribed yesterday after they read I had voted for Biden in 2020.
So if the litmus test of trust is political alignment, then there is little room left for analyses, including science.
Scientific leadership includes trying to open up that space, even if (especially if) it means hearing from those with different/wrong/objectionable views.
All that ⬆️ to be discussed in my new book, soon ish 😎
I feel strongly as a member of several scientific societies (that also publish) that politics should play little if any influence in scientific research and publication. For example, I no longer am a member of the AGU based on their political stances and look upon their publishing as less "prestigious" as a result. The political signaling exhibited by societies and publications poisons the waters of honest scientific discourse.
Glad you alerted us regarding your voting habits.... I did not vote for either presidential candidate in the last election. I am pretty old and used to having reasonable choices, on occasion between statesmen. It is disgusting to me that we will have to choose between these two guys again. However, if someone put a gun to my head and said you had to vote for one or the other, I would..... after careful reflection... tell him to go ahead. Ron
You have lost my support, and only paid yesterday. Joe Biden is the reason America is failing. I highly recommend you read a book called Slanted by Sharyl Attkison. You have fallen victim to the narrative.
Dave, Thanks for stopping by … THB is probably not the place for those who evaluate arguments based on who votes for who. Please do continue as a free subscriber, you’ll no doubt find some things to agree with and some things you don’t (if I’m doing my job!). 👍
Roger, your insistence on data integrity and the honest presentation of observable facts is what drew me to THB. As long as you remain true to those core principles, you will have all the loyal subscribers you can handle.
The words "trust in the scientific community" should never be linked. Trust is an irrational human emotion, usually promoted by charlatans; science deals with observable, provable, replicable facts.
"Trust" is Dr. Fauci...which ought to put the argument to rest.
Fauci is a great example of a scientist who have been judged by politicians and for political reasons. If politicians and people let politics guide their science, then science needs to step in to guide politics.
Politics is tribal, and an act of faith. Science should be an act of rational skepticism. Thus, the common interest of all science journals should be to promote excellence in science. Not "post-normal science", not "Christian Science", not "Scientology", not policy-driven evidence-making cloaked as science. Rather, science journals should defend, to the death, rigorous classical science, transparent as to methods, cautious, humble, careful to point out both the positive results and the limitations of the study. I was taught early on that we are all ignorant, just about different things. Thus, the wise limit their opinions to their areas of specialty. Science journal editors are not specialists in politics. So, when an editor opines on political matters, we learn two things. Firstly, his or her tribal loyalties (which we did not particularly want to know), and secondly, that he or she is willing, out of hubris, to flounder publicly into his or her particular pool of ignorance. We have no way of knowing whether the editor's particular pool is puddle-shallow or ocean-deep. Either way, credibility is lost, sometimes forever.
Nature's high minded take sounds like so much tyranny of the majority. I imagine there are members of their board who largely sit on their hands as Nature has become ever more divorced from the sober, scientific journal it once was. The more free science organizations are with their political opinions and paternalistic takes the less reasonable I believe they are. I am not particularly interested in the appeal to authority because just like trepanning, and lobotomies smart, degree laden people have a difficult time being humble enough to admit what they don't know, which is quite often a lot. The medical authority complex's completely UNscientific response to Covid has been an excruciating reminder that "scientists" often talk out of their hats because doing so earns social credit, as does vilifying other scientists who disagree. Humility is in incredibly short supply in the crowd of PhD's out to make a name for themselves.
Fascinating. I suspect the vast majority of readers will be professionals and will vote for Biden anyway. That's how it works. The well off vote liberal and support climate action. They can afford it.
More important than 'Nature' is Taylor Swift, the most globally promoted American product since the iPhone. A woman who emits more CO2 than Gaza. She is yet to endorse.
An excellent post - much appreciated, EXCEPT FOR "Full disclosure..." you shouldn't have written #8, for the very same reason you cite for journals and scientific societies - it damages your credibility.
I’m sure that for some, my transparency damages my credibility, for others, it enhances it and (I’d hope) for most it is just some additional information to help make sense of what they encounter here at THB
Unlike science institutions we individuals all have values and political preferences —so I try to err on the side of transparency 🙏
I would note, proclaiming your support for the current president is a far cry from telling me to vote for him. You also publish a column, not a scientific journal. With regards the credibility of the scientific journals, as far as I'm concerned, they have none. Not anymore, which supports your point. Endorsement by a scientific journal would taint my opinion regardless if who they supported. We've already seen manipulation of the review process. The sad part is, no matter who authors an article in these publications, my first assumption is its only because they're on the right team.
The NY State Court of Appeals ruling in the Weinstein case throws some light on this (at least for me!). In effect, the Court said that the Weinstein judge should have let the facts speak for themselves, and not allowed the prosecutors to bring up other matters not germane to the case. Your support of Biden (whether I support or deplore it) is not relevant to the post. OK – I'll get off the soap box and shut up now!
I found the climate pledge “to mitigate climate dis/misinformation” and Pielke’s perspective interesting. Each side accuses the other of promoting dis/misinformation. A less polemic-enabling pledge would be to promote climate data and climate science with the goal of an informed public. This is similar to Pielke’s own criticism of endorsing political candidates except it is at the level of endorsing political narratives, not candidates. The climate change narratives promoted by the right and left include dis/misinformation. In recent years, I’ve shared many such examples from both sides in my own monthly Weather and Climate Letter.
"Scientific membership organizations have every right to act as politically as their members desire..." But do members actually vote on these issues or are they primarily expressed by leadership that is "captured" by their own upwardly mobile striving to insert themselves on the pointy end of the Progressive Pecking Order. Didn't the American Physical Society assert that Anthropogenic Warming was as real as a molecular weight and as indisputable? And of course all of this cloaked thinly in language that inevitably ascribes social urgency to a scientific conclusion. It's a shame more physicists aren't involved in Climate research given the broad bands of uncertainty involved and what to do with chaotic relationships. So what is this APS statement achieving? Has anyone tried reading Scientific American lately? They simply said: the debate is over. The most crucial tool governments have to make our lives conform in every aspect to their dictates (Co2 emissions) is off the table for discussion. Thank you Science!
Dr Fauci is a great example of a scientist who have been judged by politicians / for political reasons. If politicians (and people) let politics guide their science, then science needs to step in to guide politics. Science alone cannot rule a society (because science is not a tool for that) but neither so can politics in a science vacuum, in a society which depends so much on science and respect for science, to function.
The credibility of these societies and journals depends on their disinterested approach to the evidence in their field of expertise. When they weigh in on subjective political questions, they are open to charges of "platforming", i.e., using the organization's credibility to advance their leadership's political preferences. The editors of Nature hijacked the journal's prestige to signal their distaste for Donald Trump. As Zhang found, they damaged their credibility with millions of Americans who will no longer trust them.
Is this all nonsense?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456
Roger confirms the tribal nature of politics.
It is Democrats and democratic affiliated "scientists" who are struggling mightily to shut him down, some even want to jail him for the inter-generational crime of "posting data" and "fostering open debate".
Its his team that is corrupting and destroying science, everything he rails against here on THB.
They are the entire reason there is a THB in the first place.
And yet still, you beg for more.
People are infinitely capable of self abuse.
More disclosure: I registered as an Independent in CO in 1986 and have never changed. If I do have a "team" it is all y'all here at THB;-)
Roger, you beat me by 2 years! My wife and I moved to Woodland Park, Colorado, in 1988. I was amazed and pleased to find there their were more registered independents in Colorado than Republicans or Democrats. I registered as an independent and remain non-affiliated 36 years later after retiring to South Carolina.
It’s doubtful Substack or THB survives another 4 years of these Democrats.
Whatever they once were they aren’t anymore.
Just like the Liberal party of Justin Trudeau
That ground you see moving in Ottawa is his own father rolling over.
Valid points. Though couldn't similar arguments be made, albeit obliquely, about individual scientists advocating for a specific issue, and if so, should the Issue Advocate role you proposed in your book have more caveats? In other words, is there a risk that trust in science and scientists could be negatively impacted by issue advocacy, even if one could adhere to its idealized standards?
Yes, agreed.
Issue advocacy is very much the default stance for all of us. Honest brokering and science arbitrating require institutions (except for the most simple of contexts - eg, tornado politics).
Consider that several readers unsubscribed yesterday after they read I had voted for Biden in 2020.
So if the litmus test of trust is political alignment, then there is little room left for analyses, including science.
Scientific leadership includes trying to open up that space, even if (especially if) it means hearing from those with different/wrong/objectionable views.
All that ⬆️ to be discussed in my new book, soon ish 😎
A lot on your plate, for sure. Any chance you'll find time to do a review Clintel's Climate: the Movie? Or have I misssed it?
I feel strongly as a member of several scientific societies (that also publish) that politics should play little if any influence in scientific research and publication. For example, I no longer am a member of the AGU based on their political stances and look upon their publishing as less "prestigious" as a result. The political signaling exhibited by societies and publications poisons the waters of honest scientific discourse.
Glad you alerted us regarding your voting habits.... I did not vote for either presidential candidate in the last election. I am pretty old and used to having reasonable choices, on occasion between statesmen. It is disgusting to me that we will have to choose between these two guys again. However, if someone put a gun to my head and said you had to vote for one or the other, I would..... after careful reflection... tell him to go ahead. Ron
You have lost my support, and only paid yesterday. Joe Biden is the reason America is failing. I highly recommend you read a book called Slanted by Sharyl Attkison. You have fallen victim to the narrative.
Dave, Thanks for stopping by … THB is probably not the place for those who evaluate arguments based on who votes for who. Please do continue as a free subscriber, you’ll no doubt find some things to agree with and some things you don’t (if I’m doing my job!). 👍
Roger, your insistence on data integrity and the honest presentation of observable facts is what drew me to THB. As long as you remain true to those core principles, you will have all the loyal subscribers you can handle.
The words "trust in the scientific community" should never be linked. Trust is an irrational human emotion, usually promoted by charlatans; science deals with observable, provable, replicable facts.
"Trust" is Dr. Fauci...which ought to put the argument to rest.
Fauci is a great example of a scientist who have been judged by politicians and for political reasons. If politicians and people let politics guide their science, then science needs to step in to guide politics.
Fauci isn't trust, he is science.
Just ask him.
Politics is tribal, and an act of faith. Science should be an act of rational skepticism. Thus, the common interest of all science journals should be to promote excellence in science. Not "post-normal science", not "Christian Science", not "Scientology", not policy-driven evidence-making cloaked as science. Rather, science journals should defend, to the death, rigorous classical science, transparent as to methods, cautious, humble, careful to point out both the positive results and the limitations of the study. I was taught early on that we are all ignorant, just about different things. Thus, the wise limit their opinions to their areas of specialty. Science journal editors are not specialists in politics. So, when an editor opines on political matters, we learn two things. Firstly, his or her tribal loyalties (which we did not particularly want to know), and secondly, that he or she is willing, out of hubris, to flounder publicly into his or her particular pool of ignorance. We have no way of knowing whether the editor's particular pool is puddle-shallow or ocean-deep. Either way, credibility is lost, sometimes forever.
When I read your disclosures they were not bloviating and political which is a breath of fresh air.
Nature's high minded take sounds like so much tyranny of the majority. I imagine there are members of their board who largely sit on their hands as Nature has become ever more divorced from the sober, scientific journal it once was. The more free science organizations are with their political opinions and paternalistic takes the less reasonable I believe they are. I am not particularly interested in the appeal to authority because just like trepanning, and lobotomies smart, degree laden people have a difficult time being humble enough to admit what they don't know, which is quite often a lot. The medical authority complex's completely UNscientific response to Covid has been an excruciating reminder that "scientists" often talk out of their hats because doing so earns social credit, as does vilifying other scientists who disagree. Humility is in incredibly short supply in the crowd of PhD's out to make a name for themselves.
Fascinating. I suspect the vast majority of readers will be professionals and will vote for Biden anyway. That's how it works. The well off vote liberal and support climate action. They can afford it.
More important than 'Nature' is Taylor Swift, the most globally promoted American product since the iPhone. A woman who emits more CO2 than Gaza. She is yet to endorse.
Full disclosure.
I have never voted (Scotland).
An excellent post - much appreciated, EXCEPT FOR "Full disclosure..." you shouldn't have written #8, for the very same reason you cite for journals and scientific societies - it damages your credibility.
Thanks
I’m sure that for some, my transparency damages my credibility, for others, it enhances it and (I’d hope) for most it is just some additional information to help make sense of what they encounter here at THB
Unlike science institutions we individuals all have values and political preferences —so I try to err on the side of transparency 🙏
I would note, proclaiming your support for the current president is a far cry from telling me to vote for him. You also publish a column, not a scientific journal. With regards the credibility of the scientific journals, as far as I'm concerned, they have none. Not anymore, which supports your point. Endorsement by a scientific journal would taint my opinion regardless if who they supported. We've already seen manipulation of the review process. The sad part is, no matter who authors an article in these publications, my first assumption is its only because they're on the right team.
The NY State Court of Appeals ruling in the Weinstein case throws some light on this (at least for me!). In effect, the Court said that the Weinstein judge should have let the facts speak for themselves, and not allowed the prosecutors to bring up other matters not germane to the case. Your support of Biden (whether I support or deplore it) is not relevant to the post. OK – I'll get off the soap box and shut up now!