Potsdam Climate Institute Scientists/Government Under Fire For Politicizing Climate Science

Chief Editor of ‘Science’ criticizes activism by climate scientists: PIK needs to define red line for employees

By Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Luning
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)

The well-known journal ‘Science’ has a new chief editor. Jeremy Berg is a biochemist was among the leadership of the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) in Pennsylvania. Since July 1, 2016 he has been in charge of Science. At the website ‘Times Higher Education‘ Berg complained about a massive loss of trust the public has had with respect to science. In Berg’s opinion, climate scientists bear part of the blame because they’ve step over the line and made themselves vulnerable to attacks through their political lobby work. The Times article quotes Berg as follows:

But researchers are not entirely blameless for this rising hostility, thinks Berg. Too often they have gone beyond explaining the scientific situation and ventured into policy prescriptions, notably in the case of climate change, he thinks. ‘The policy issues should be informed by science, but they are separate questions,’ he says. ‘Scientists to some degree, intentionally or otherwise, have been mashing the two together,’ he adds, and urges scientists to be more ‘transparent’ about ‘where the firmness of your conclusions end’.”

The criticism of course is also aimed at Potsdam, where the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) was especially founded for that very purpose: to mix science and politics. A terrible structural error that the current German government vehemently ignores. Are they really able to just simply skip over the advisories coming from the “Scientific Champions League”?

It is indeed strange that the PIK, despite all its scientific errors, gaffes and blunders, can be showered with awards and prizes. A “thank you” for the political legwork for Germany’s precarious Energiewende?

 

23 responses to “Potsdam Climate Institute Scientists/Government Under Fire For Politicizing Climate Science”

  1. Stephen Richards

    They appear to be saying that scientists should provide caveats and assumptions and error bars with metadata.

    There’s novel.

  2. sod

    From the article:

    “In his address, Gawande cited a study that showed a significant decline in trust in science among American conservatives. In 1974, conservatives had the most trust in science, but by 2010, they had the least, and substantially less than liberals in particular.

    Donald Trump, who has erroneously linked vaccines to autism, blamed China for creating the concept of global warming to undermine US manufacturing and claimed that environmentally friendly light bulbs can cause cancer, can be seen as one manifestation of this long-term collapse in conservative trust in science in the US.”

    The real problem, is conservatives hate for science. Better we stop talking about evolution, as it also might offend them. Let us call it just a “theory”, shall we?

    1. Analitik

      Conservatives are sceptical of the garbage that passes as climate “science”. Progressives, on the other hand, are gullible and believe in the groupthink posing as science.

    2. JustAnOldGuy

      Well sod when the ‘theory’ of evolution was politicized in the last century it gave the world the ‘science’ of eugenics. There were lots of good, scientifically sound reasons to get rid of useless eaters, forcefully sterilize those who were deemed genetically deficient, rank all the races of humans with categories ranging from supermen to subhuman. What a boon to human progress that was, eh? My definition of conservative – someone committed to conserving liberty and individuality. My definition of liberal – someone committed to liberally increasing the power of the state at the expense of every individual’s liberty. Where does the science of global warming fit on this scale of conduct when it becomes politicized?

    3. yonason

      “THE REAL PROBLEM…” is that sod never knows what he is talking about.

      Here’s the tape of what he REALLY said.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms3jvef4HaQ

      Dr. Carson agrees with the substance of what Trump said, that they are giving kids too much too soon. You’re a bigger conspiracy theorist than you’re accusing Trump of being.

      As to evolution, Darwin got Macroevolution dead wrong. But the evolution mafia won’t even allow research on how wrong he got it, because they will loose power and prestige. Unfortunately for the Darwinistas, there are some real scientists who, because of their secure positions, aren’t afraid to ‘tell it like it is’.

      Lynn Margulis – “I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”

      Denis Noble “…all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved…”

      Everything you know is wrong.

      1. sod

        Trump has said more on this subject in the past. He even got caught telling the same story twice in a pretty different version.

        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/17/donald-trump-vaccines-autism-debate

        1. yonason

          A healthy baby gets shots, gets sick, grows up autistic. Anecdote or not, it happens too often to be dismissed as the rantings of an anti-science loon.

          I know someone who’s son got sick from his first (and only) DPT shot, made the kid practically unconscious for a week. He is now mildly autistic. Is there a connection? I don’t know, but given the massive fraud in drug research, I’m not confident of the safety of many new medicines (Statins are a prime example).

          As Ben Carson said, and to which Trump agreed, MORE CARE NEEDS TO BE EXERCISED IN ADMINISTERING SHOTS TO CHILDREN.

          Everything you “know” is wrong.

        2. yonason
    4. Robin Guenier

      Interestingly, there’s an element of truth in Trump’s comment about global warming. Of course China didn’t create the concept – on the contrary Ding Zhongli, VP of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, has suggested that the intention of the developed countries in putting “an arguable scientific problem” on the negotiating table is “for the restriction of the economic development of the developing countries, and for keeping their own advantageous positions”.**

      However, despite its scepticism about AGW, China is happy to ratify the Paris Agreement. Why? Well, it’s an agreement that, while exempting “developing” countries, of which China – absurdly – is one, from any obligation, moral or legal, to reduce their emissions, imposes obligations on the “developed” countries that it could well believe would “undermine US manufacturing”.

      ** https://web.archive.org/web/20131215162018/http://www.energytribune.com/2621/china-fights-back-scientists-find-no-solid-scientific-evidence-to-strictly-correlate-global-temperature-rise-and-co2-concentrations#sthash.p3PQEqFP.dpbs

    5. Not that Bob

      “The real problem, is conservatives hate for science.”

      Generally, both ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatves’ hate hypotheses or theories that contradict their strongly held beliefs.

      “Let us call it just a “theory”, shall we?”

      Implying that ‘conservatives’, being scientifically illiterate, will accept ‘theory’ as meaning ‘mere supposition’?

      Works for the majority of the population, so let’s.

      1. sod

        “Generally, both ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatves’ hate hypotheses or theories that contradict their strongly held beliefs.”!

        sorry, but that is not what your source says:

        “Results show that group differences in trust in science are largely
        stable over the period, except for respondents identifying as conservative. Conservatives
        began the period with the highest trust in science, relative to liberals and moderates, and
        ended the period with the lowest. ”

        http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf

        But hey, that is just science, you will surely be able to find a reason to dismiss this finding…

        1. AndyG55

          Yes sop.

          Climate non-science has a LOT to answer for.

          The destruction of the scientific method in favour of political propaganda hype and expediency.!

          1. sod

            “Climate non-science has a LOT to answer for.”

            please look at the facts, for example at the graph on page 9 of the scientific article i linked (which you did not read, of course).

            http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf

            Conservative trust in science started to drop in the mid 80s. According to you folks, that was shortly after scientists were afraid of a new ice age.

          2. AndyG55

            The mid 1980’s

            That’s about when the Global Warming con started.

            And Yep, the same people were involved in the cooling scare, too.

            Thanks for the confirmation, sop.

            These “Climate Change” glitterati continue to destroy the public’s trust in ral science.

            You are doing a great job for the realists. 🙂

        2. David Johnson

          Distrust caused entirely by you and your ilk. If there were a God, boy would you be in trouble at the Pearly Gates

        3. Not that Bob

          “sorry, but that is not what your source says”

          Alas, the link provided to YOUR source is to a pay to view site, which does not permit downloads.

          “But hey, that is just science, you will surely be able to find a reason to dismiss this finding…”

          Why would I, it supports my point.

          When ‘science’ was all about staying ahead of the commies, rockets, satellites, bigger and better bombs, ‘conservatives’ trusted it.

          However, when ‘science’ was used increasingly to underpin regulations that at first placed environmental concerns above economic development, and finally placed ‘sustainability’ above all other concerns, it was inevitable that their trust in it would erode.

          As for ‘liberals’, why would their trust in ‘science’ change? Whenever they shout loudly enough, ‘science’ kowtows. What are the odds that glyphosate will soon be banned throughout the world?

          There would be no scientific basis for doing so, but something suitably ‘sciency’ will be used to justify it. And the ‘liberal’ trust in ‘science’ will again be maintained.

          Disclaimer: I live a green lifestyle, I garden organically, so no glyphosate for me.

          1. DirkH

            “When ‘science’ was all about staying ahead of the commies, rockets, satellites, bigger and better bombs, ‘conservatives’ trusted it.

            However, when ‘science’ was used increasingly to underpin regulations that at first placed environmental concerns above economic development, and finally placed ‘sustainability’ above all other concerns, it was inevitable that their trust in it would erode.”

            Rockets, satellites and bombs have to WORK. Warmunism and other abuses of computer modeling like Sagan’s Nuclear Winter crackpottery – oh and the grandaddy of computer propaganda, the Club Of Rome’s Limits To Growth – have been a new and constant form of , well, propaganda and agitation since the UN stooges got their hands on a computer.

            Computer models are the new Socialist-Realist Murals (of FDR and Uncle Joe) (though I’m not sure the USSR had enough paint).

  3. Paul Aubrin

    Jeremy Berg’s declaration opens an era of more objective science, and less political interventionism. I hope he succeeds.

  4. tom0mason

    The problem with modern thinking is that so many people have confused technology with science. Technology is just the application of proven science through employing practical engineering skill. Whether it is worthy or even worthwhile is up to the individuals and markets.
    Technology is not science, technology relies on science to function. Also it is evident that for science to progress in a meaningful way, it relies on technological progress to accomplish better understanding through gifts of better observational methods and measurements technology creates. To that end science and technology are a effective feedback mechanism for each other, as one must be true in order that the other can better itself and vice versa.

    Science is the philosophy of understanding nature’s reality. To correctly understand in science it was normal to ‘prove’ a hypothesis true by careful, validated, verifiable and repeatable observation and measurement. By these methods science was deemed worthy, theory was proven true (or not) until the day a better, deeper understanding was found.
    From the realms of possibility came the theoretical sciences, and theoretical physics. Science as a branch of imaginative ideas where true known physical rules are tested in the mental fantasy land of virtual reality. Where the big bang of mathematical models reveal the blackholes in our real knowledge of the universe.

    And now, like bastard love child of theoretical science and green politics we have theoretical climate change.
    This is were outlandish guesses are made about future and past probabilities; guesses made without properly understanding that all major the interactions of all the major parameters of the subject in question must be known to a given level of accuracy for meaningful ‘projection’ (predictions) to be made. Theoretical climate change, where error bands are absent, where readjusted proxy data replaces the known quantity, where models of aggregated proxy data sets meld together and replaces real observation and measurement.
    And with all that, reality and proof has left the room.

  5. tom0mason

    Another comment vanished without acknowledgement, gone without giving me any reason to believe it has been received or not.

    Ho-humm the virtual reality of the blog…

  6. michael hart

    It’s good to see Jeremy Berg broaching this issue. I still hope that genuine scientists can escape from under the intellectual mushroom cloud that is “climate change”.

  7. Not that Bob

    @ DirkH

    “Rockets, satellites and bombs have to WORK. Warmunism and other abuses of computer modeling like Sagan’s Nuclear Winter crackpottery – oh and the grandaddy of computer propaganda, the Club Of Rome’s Limits To Growth – have been a new and constant form of, well, propaganda and agitation since the UN stooges got their hands on a computer.”

    You are preaching to the converted.

    My post was addressing sod’s point. I merely sought to show why ‘conservatives’ might well have good reason to distrust Regulatory Science while ‘liberals’ might well have good reason to continue to trust it.

    No Green would put their life at risk by flying to their next Climate Conference in an aeroplane whose only prototype was a computer model.

    Yet Greens are prepared to put the lives of billions at risk by pursuing policies whose only underpinning is a computer model.

    The fact that I choose to live a (civilised – not a Yurt in Wales) lifestyle that does not impact too much on the environment, does not mean that I have abandoned rational thought.