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?