• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Climatologists Shocked By Nature Op-Ed Arguing Objectivity In Climate Science Is Problematic

"Keeping feelings separate from research is fundamental to the foundational principles of science."

by Kevin Killough
November 13, 2024, 9:05 AM
in Extreme Weather, News, Science
Reading Time: 7 mins read
A A
2
Share on FacebookShare on XwitterShare on Linkedin

protest 15 degrees

Three climate researchers took to the pages of Nature to argue that objectivity in climate science is problematic because it hinders their political advocacy, which they argue is too important to deny. [emphasis, links added]

Therefore, the authors argue, the values of objectivity in scientific research should be reconsidered.

“The public has watched as national and sub-national governments have declared climate emergencies, all the while continuing to grant new permits for the extraction of fossil fuels, seemingly ignoring increasingly urgent scientific messages that this locks the world into passing 1.5 °C of warming above preindustrial levels by 2030, if not sooner,” the researchers explain.

While the researchers equate a refusal to stop the production of fossil fuels with ignoring science, energy experts argue these policies will result in enormous economic problems and widespread poverty.

The authors of the Nature op-ed, seemingly unaware or unconcerned with the impacts of such policies, argue that it’s unfair to expect climate researchers not to get emotional when governments don’t adopt these policies. 

“Scientists who express their feelings and worries about climate change are often not encouraged by their colleagues and are instead expected to carry on without acknowledging or communicating the continued inadequacy of action required to secure a liveable and sustainable future,” the authors state.

By just about every measure — including life expectancy, wealth, and deaths from natural disasters — the human race is doing better than ever. Despite this, the authors believe their fears are based on indisputable facts. 

Climate advocacy versus straight reporting

Dr. Matt Wielicki, former assistant professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Alabama, doubted the authors’ claim that their colleagues object to their climate advocacy.

Wielicki left academia in large part because, he says, his views contradicting the climate crisis narrative were met with hostility from the university’s administration.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, who also raises doubts about what she calls “climate hysteria,” tells a similar story about her choice to leave academia and pursue a career in the private sector.

“I’ve never seen somebody lose a position or have a pile-on online because they’re being active on climate. But I’ve seen that happen to many well-distinguished scientists, where they have just the simplest of questions. I think this is the classic projection,” Wielicki told Just the News.

Wielicki said he was shocked when he read the Nature piece. He said it’s okay for researchers to have feelings. It’s a part of being human.

But keeping feelings separate from research is fundamental to the foundational principles of science, he said. It’s how research is kept free from bias, and during peer review, bias is one of the things reviewers look for.

“The Nature article is essentially telling scientists that the data isn’t important anymore. We know the answer now. It’s now stirring up emotion,” Wielicki said.

Conflicts of interest

The blurring of the line between climate research and political advocacy is becoming more common and raising concerns among other researchers. The highly influential and prestigious U.S. National Academy of Science recently established a committee to examine and further research “attribution science.”

Attribution science is used to determine how much greenhouse gas emissions contribute to specific weather events. Its methodologies were developed to aid lawsuits against large emitters, primarily oil companies.

There are dozens of these lawsuits filed by anti-fossil-fuel groups and local governments, which critics argue are aimed at advancing an energy transition through the courts, as opposed to legislatures where policymakers would have to contend with voters. 

The NAS committee’s sponsors include the Bezos Earth Fund and Robert Litterman, who is on the board of Climate Central, a climate advocacy group that founded the World Weather Attribution (WWA).

The WWA’s purpose is to connect climate change to individual weather events in support of climate lawsuits. Both the WWA and committee are funded by the Bezos Earth Fund. 

At “The Honest Broker” Substack, Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., a retired professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder points out that the committee’s membership also includes Delta Merner, who leads The USC Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Its mission is also to help advance climate litigation.

Pielke writes that the judicial system has a pressing need for expertise, and there’s nothing wrong with advocacy groups organizing experts or creating scientific research in support of litigation.

However, he argues, it’s not appropriate for such legal advocates to serve on a NAS study committee that evaluates and legitimizes the information they produce in support of the litigation that these advocates are involved with. 

“The failures of scientific integrity here are profound, obvious, and completely out in public,” Pielke writes.

climate march protest
Photo by Pauline Loroy on Unsplash

Losing trust

The scientists defending their emotional research appear to think there’s no legitimate dispute of their fears, but other scientists disagree.

The authors of the Nature op-ed told The Guardian that they were “mocked and gaslighted” for speaking up about their fears.

They claimed “some scientists” ridiculed them for participating in a Guardian survey of climate scientists talking about their mental health issues such as depression, which they blame on climate change.

They don’t provide any details on who these scientists are, what exactly was said to them, or how these criticisms were communicated. But they defend their “strong emotions” as being “vital” to their research on climate change.

One of the Nature op-ed authors, Dr. Lisa Schipper from the University of Bonn, told the Guardian that due to the “sad destruction of the planet,” she doesn’t have the “choice now to be unemotional about climate change research.” 

Among the things that frighten her, she said, are heat-wave deaths, people left homeless by floods, and falling polar bear populations.

As Pielke pointed out in a 2022 Substack article, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a consortium of the world’s leading climate researchers, is clear about having no confidence in overall trends in flooding.

This also means, Pielke explains, that the IPCC doesn’t have confidence that the frequency or magnitude of flood events can be attributed to climate change. Likewise, normalized U.S. flood damage as a portion of GDP has significantly declined since 1940.

Heat-wave deaths are rising, and there’s reason to be concerned. However, as a result of rising temperatures, fewer people are dying from cold events, which are a far larger killer than heat. 

“Normalization of bias”

Schipper’s claim that polar bear populations are falling isn’t supported by the data.

According to a 2021 status report by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission Polar Bear Specialist Group, polar bear populations have increased as much as 40% since 1960.

A 2018 study estimates that polar bear populations increased nearly four-fold since 1950. 

At his “Irrational Fear” Substack, Wielicki argues that the “normalization of bias” in science, as promoted in the Nature and Guardian articles, is eroding public trust in science.

Top photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash

Read rest at Just The News

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Skype
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky

Join our list

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously

Related Posts

Energy

MISO Ignored Warnings Before Holiday Blackout Left Blue City In The Dark

May 27, 2025
Extreme Weather

‘Doomed From Birth’: How Climate Alarmism Is Stoking An Epidemic Of Youth Anxiety

May 26, 2025
Energy

Trump Urges UK To Cut Sky-High Bills With More Drilling, Less Renewables

May 23, 2025

Comments 2

  1. alan stewart says:
    6 months ago

    Like the losing Dims this is called DESPERATION.

  2. Spurwing Plover says:
    6 months ago

    Most Americans don’t trust the M.S. Media Bottom Feeders anymore and this whole Global Warming/Climate Change is just a way for Eco-Freaks and the Demo-Rats and UN/Globalists to scam the World into a Global Government

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • new orleans blackoutMISO Ignored Warnings Before Holiday Blackout Left Blue City In The Dark
    May 27, 2025
    Nearly 100,000 lost power in New Orleans after MISO cut the grid, raising alarm over blackout risk tied to green energy replacing coal and gas. […]
  • protest FFF world on fire‘Doomed From Birth’: How Climate Alarmism Is Stoking An Epidemic Of Youth Anxiety
    May 26, 2025
    Hollywood heirs like Ramona Sarsgaard and Violet Affleck are spiraling into climate panic—fueled by activism, media hype, and elite institutions. […]
  • Biden touting green economyGOP’s Big, Beautiful Bill Would Rescind $500 Billion In Green Energy Handouts
    May 26, 2025
    The House-passed BBB would repeal $500B in green handouts, slash subsidies, and undo key parts of the inaptly named Inflation Reduction Act. […]
  • humpback whale ny coastHow Climate Buzzwords Hijacked The Language To Hide Environmental Harm
    May 26, 2025
    Climate buzzwords like ‘carbon footprint’ and ‘green energy’ mislead the public and mask real environmental damage. […]
  • north sea oil rigTrump Urges UK To Cut Sky-High Bills With More Drilling, Less Renewables
    May 23, 2025
    Trump urged the UK to slash sky-high energy bills by expanding oil and gas drilling, embracing fracking, and ditching costly renewables and imports. […]
  • Ocean waves near pierMeteorologist Slams CNN For Stoking Debunked Fears Of A Collapsing AMOC
    May 23, 2025
    CNN pushes debunked AMOC collapse claims to fuel coastal flooding and economic panic—ignoring data, expert doubts, and real insurance cost drivers. […]
  • NY Times headline screencapNYT Decries NOAA Staffing Cuts While Ignoring Altered Temperature Records
    May 23, 2025
    NYT highlights Trump rollback of climate programs, but skips over NOAA’s temp data tampering and holes in the climate crisis narrative. […]
  • gavin newsom joe bidenSenate Strikes Down California EV Mandate In Blow To Biden’s Climate Agenda
    May 23, 2025
    Senate overturns California EV mandate, striking down one of Biden’s final climate moves in a blow to draconian green energy rules. […]
  • mountain wind turbinesOregon Ranks Near The Bottom In Rolling Out Its Green Energy Schemes
    May 22, 2025
    Oregon’s green energy push is more talk than action—marked by failing wind turbines, oil leaks, risky offshore plans, and stalled climate policies. […]
  • electric truck chargingThreatened With Legal Action, Calif. Makes U-Turn On Electric Truck Mandate
    May 22, 2025
    California repeals its electric truck mandate after legal pushback from 17 states, raising questions about nationwide emissions and vehicle standards. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email either instantly or daily. Check your Junk folder for any verification emails upon subscribing.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books We Like

very convenient warming

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch