The importance of distinguishing climate science from climate activism
A Cambridge professor speaks out in an article in Nature
Dear Church Leaders (and everyone else)
Further to April’s posts re climate…
I thought it worth bringing to your attention this recent article published in Nature:
The author is Prof Ulf Büntgen at the University of Cambridge:
In summary, Prof Büntgen says:
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…
Background and motivation
In the first part of the article he describes what he sees as:
an intermingling of science and policy, in which political decisions are believed to be without any alternative (because they are scientifically predefined) and large parts of the scientific community accept a subordinate role to society (because there is an apparent moral obligation)
He argues that:
Motivated by the continuous inability of an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to tackle global warming… quasi-religious belief in, rather than the understanding of the complex causes and consequences of climate and environmental changes undermines academic principles (emphasis added)
And recommends that:
climate science and climate activism should be separated conceptually and practically, and [that] the latter should not be confused with science communication and public engagement
Climate science and climate activism
While Büntgen does not intend his article as a critique of climate activism per se, he says that he is:
foremost concerned by an increasing number of climate scientists becoming climate activists, because scholars should not have a priori interests in the outcome of their studies
He contends that, as in any academic case:
the quest for objectivity must also account for all aspects of global climate change research
And while he has no problem with scholars taking public positions on climate issues, he sees:
potential conflicts when scholars use information selectively or over-attribute problems to [man-made] warming, and thus politicise climate and environmental change
Adding that:
without self-critique and a diversity of viewpoints, scientists will ultimately harm the credibility of their research and possibly cause a wider public, political and economic backlash
He says he is similarly worried about activists who pretend to be scientists, and points out that:
there is… a thin line between the use and misuse of scientific certainty and uncertainty, and [that] there is evidence for strategic and selective communication of scientific information for climate action
He observes that:
(Non-)specialist activists often adopt scientific arguments as a source of moral legitimation for their movements, which can be radical and destructive rather than rational and constructive
And points out that
Unrestricted faith in scientific knowledge is problematic because science is neither entitled to absolute truth nor ethical authority
And adds that:
The notion of science to be explanatory rather than exploratory is a naïve overestimation that can fuel the complex field of global climate change to become a dogmatic ersatz religion for the wider public
He appears convinced that the actions of people are responsible for a substantial part of global climate change (although he does not cite a reference).1 But he argues that even that:
does not justify the deviation from long-lasting scientific standards, which have distinguished the academic world from socio-economic and political spheres
The role of recent global warming
Büntgen says he finds it:
misleading when prominent organisations, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)… tend to overstate scientific understanding of the rate of recent… warming relative to the range of past natural temperature variability over [many thousands of] years
And contends that:
the quality and quantity of available climate proxy records are merely too low to allow for a robust comparison of the observed annual temperature extremes in the 21st century against reconstructed long-term climate [data]
He points out that:
Like all science, climate science is tentative and fallible…
And thus emphasises the need for more research to better understand the science.
He goes on to add that he:
cannot exclude that the ongoing pseudo-scientific chase for record-breaking heatwaves and associated hydroclimatic extremes distracts from scientifically guided international achievements of important long-term goals… (emphasis added)
Noting that:
The unprecedented recent temperature rise… has been amplified by an ongoing El Niño event [that] is likely to continue in 2024
A way forward
Büntgen contends that the current situation…
whereby scientific insights are adopted to promote pre-determined positions… creates confusion [and] diminishes academic credibility
And that:
blurring boundaries between science and activism has the potential to harm movements of environmentalism and climate protection, as well as the much-needed international consent for sustainable growth and a global energy transition
He warns that:
If unbound climate activism results in widespread panic or indifference, people may think that it is either too late for action or that action does not matter
In conclusion, and as a way forward, he recommends that:
a neutral science should remain unbiased and avoid any form of selection, over-attribution and reductionism that would reflect a type of activism
And that:
Advice from a diversity of researchers and institutions beyond the IPCC and other large-scale organisations… should include critical investigations of clear-cut cases, such as anthropogenic climate change
As he sees it:
A successful, international climate agenda… requires reliable reporting of detailed and trustworthy certainties and uncertainties, whereas any form of scientism and exaggeration will be counterproductive
I wonder what Büntgen would make of these two fear-mongering Guardian articles published the same day as the Nature paper:
How many of those “380 top climate scientists” are actually climate scientists, let alone climate scientists with no funding conflicts of interest?
I am reminded of this extraordinary resignation statement by US assistant professor of geology Matthew Wielicki at the beginning of last year:
I will be leaving my faculty position in the [University of Alabama] Department of Geological Sciences after this semester so I thought I should tell you why.
As with most large decisions, the reasons are mainly personal. Covid made me realize that we were really far from our families… and the travel on our elderly parents was taking a toll. The result was that our children were not seeing their grandparents very often. As a Polish immigrant I know what it’s like to live far from family and I started to resent myself for choosing my career over my family’s time together.
Furthermore, over the last decade or so, but especially the last few years, the obsession with universities and grant-funding institutions on immutable characteristics of faculty and students and the push for equity in science above all else has dramatically changed the profession of an academic professor. The rise of illiberalism in the name of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion is the antithesis of the principles that universities were founded on. These are no longer places that embrace the freedom of exchanging ideas and will punish those that go against the narrative.
Although I had worked from an early age to earn a PhD and become a professor, like my father, I feel the profession is no longer worthy of my efforts. Contributing to this is the earth science communities’ silence on the false “climate emergency” narrative. Members of the community routinely discuss the mental health effects of climate catastrophism but dare not speak out lest they lose their positions and research funds (emphasis added).
Since leaving the University of Alabama, Wielicki has been a prolific writer of climate-related articles at the Irrational Fear Substack:
Dear Church Leaders homepage (or via Substack, or e.g. DuckDuckGo, but not Google for some reason)
The Big Reveal — Christianity carefully considered (which can also be found via Substack, or e.g. DuckDuckGo, but not Google)
In any case, I wonder if a journal such as Nature would publish an article by anyone questioning the role of human activity in climate change