Nature versus Heartland

Het blad Nature heeft een ijzersterke wetenschappelijke reputatie. Maar op het gebied van klimaat is het in veler ogen verre van objectief en neutraal. Sterker nog, het is een van de meest fanatieke apostelen van het broeikasevangelie. Artikelen die in strijd zijn met de menselijke broeikashypothese (AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming) worden in de regel met de meest flauwe smoesjes afgewezen.

Ook de klimaatconferenties van het Amerikaanse Heartland Institute, waar de crème de la crème van de internationale klimaatsceptici optrad, werden door Nature in de regel genegeerd. Maar politiek gezien hebben die conferenties wel degelijk invloed gehad, getuige de omslag in Amerikaanse politiek – vooral onder de Republikeinen, die zich nu tegen een klimaatbeleid hebben gekeerd dat tot 'all pain and no gain' leidt. Daarom heeft Nature wèl aandacht geschonken aan de laatste klimaatconferentie van het Heartland Institute, zij het bepaald niet op welwillende of zelfs neutrale wijze.

Nature ziet daarin toch vooral een door het de conservatieven en het bedrijfsleven geïnspireerde actie dan wel samenzwering om beleid te blokkeren dat tot een redding van de planeet moet leiden. De redactie moet hebben gedacht dat het de hoogste tijd werd om nu eens en voor altijd met die kwaadaardige onzin af te rekenen. Het resultaat was een artikel van Jeff Tollefson en een ongesigneerd redactioneel commentaar dat bestond uit een litanie van beschuldigingen en insinuaties aan het adres van de klimaatsceptici in het algemeen en Heartland in het bijzonder.

Onder de titel, 'Heart of the Matter. The Heartland Institute's climate conference reveals the motives of global-warming sceptics', schreef Nature:

It would be easy for scientists to ignore the Heartland Institute's climate conferences. They are curious affairs designed to gather and share contrarian views, in which science is secondary to wild accusations and political propaganda. They are easy to lampoon — delegates at the latest meeting of the Chicago-based institute in Washington DC earlier this month could pick up primers on the libertarian writings of Russian–American novelist Ayn Rand, who developed the philosophical theory of objectivism, and postcards depicting former US vice-president Al Gore as a fire-breathing demon. And they are predictable, with environmentalists often portrayed as the latest incarnation of a persistent communist plot. “Green on the outside, red on the inside,” said one display. “Smash the watermelons!” So why does Nature this week devote two pages to such absurdities?

We now have more than two decades of evidence that closing our eyes will not make the climate sceptics go away. Instead, in the United States at least, they have cemented their propaganda into a broader agenda that pits conservatives of various stripes against almost any form of government regulation. The sceptics like to present the battlefield as science, but, as the News Feature on page 440 makes clear, the fight is, in fact, a violent collision of world views. Does the following sound familiar? “They distort science, ignore reality and will not tolerate opinions or facts that conflict with their beliefs.” “Cynical manipulators or simple pawns, their purpose is only to keep funds flowing to a corrupt few who profit from the status quo.” Those are the kinds of words scientists use, often correctly, to describe the sceptics, many of whom would have the financial interests of today continue their dominance tomorrow.

Yet this is also how sceptics characterize climate scientists, whose careers and reputations they claim are intertwined with protecting the science of anthropogenic global warming. To address this conflict might be seen as lending respectability to the spurious claims made by sceptics against respected scientists and robust science. So, let's be clear: Nature is not endorsing the Heartland Institute as a serious voice on climate science. Instead, the News Feature is intended to offer researchers outside climate science a window into the motives and tactics of those who have set themselves up as such a voice. (Those inside climate science, of course, are all too aware of these already.)

En zo gaat het redactionele commentaar nog een tijdje door.

Conclusie:

It is scientists, not sceptics, who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own. And far from quashing dissent, it is the scientists, not the sceptics, who do most to acknowledge gaps in their studies and point out the limitations of their data — which is where sceptics get much of the mud they fling at the scientists. By contrast, the Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters.

Lees verder hier.

Dat de AGWers er happig op zijn om openheid van zaken te geven over de tekortkomingen van hun hypothesen is nu niet bepaald de indruk die de onbevooroordeelde waarnemer krijgt als hij de rapporten van het VN-Klimaatpanel leest en de e-mails en documenten die er bij het Climategate-schandaal in de openbaarheid zijn gekomen. Maar dat terzijde.

Heartland kon dat natuurlijk niet op zich laten zitten. De directeur van het Heartland Institute, Joe Bast, die zich inmiddels behoorlijk in de klimaat´problematiek´ heeft verdiept, schreef de volgende - uiterst ingetogen - repliek, die waarschijnlijk wel nooit in Nature zal worden gepubliceerd:

Nature, the widely respected science journal, has a feature story and an unsigned editorial in its latest issue addressing The Heartland Institute’s contribution to the global debate over climate change. The articles can be read (for free) here and here.

These articles are surely a sign that the debate is not over regarding the causes and consequences of climate change and what, if anything, should be done to alter the human influence on climate. But the articles themselves hardly do justice to our efforts, or the efforts of many scientists who are speaking out against the fake “consensus” that Nature itself has done so much to promote in its coverage of climate change.

Turning first to the feature story by Jeff Tollefson, titled “The Sceptic Meets His Match,” I’ve thanked Mr. Tollefson for an article that is, by and large, fair and accurate. He accurately summarizes my position, saying “he does not necessarily deny that humans are having an influence on the climate, but he does question the forecasts of catastrophic impacts and the rationale for curbing carbon emissions.” But there are some important errors and omissions we wish to correct.

Vervolgens gaat Joe Bast punt voor punt op deze fouten en omissies in.

Over het redactionele commentaar merkt hij ten slotte het volgende op:

Turning now to the unsigned editorial, titled “Heart of the Matter,” the difference in tone and rhetoric from Tollefson’s essay could hardly be greater. According to the editorial, The Heartland Institute’s conferences – which have drawn more than 2,000 scientists and other experts from some 20 countries – are “curious affairs,” “easy to lampoon,” “predictable,” and “absurdities.” Nature deigns to recognize us, we are told, only because “closing our eyes will not make the climate sceptics go away.” Well, they at least got that part right.

The editorial admits that Climate Change Reconsidered [het door Heartland uitgegeven rapport dat een kritiek bevat op AGW] “is well sourced and based on scientific papers,” but complains it “makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading, and do not highlight the uncertainties.” The complaint lacks any examples or substantiation, so it cannot be rebutted except to say “prove it.” But the irony should not be overlooked that it was Nature’s record of publishing misleading editorials and articles that hide uncertainties or make claims that cannot be replicated by other scientists that made publication of Climate Change Reconsidered necessary. If we err on the side of being too skeptical, it is only because we are trying to restore balance to a ship that is listing so far to one side that it is in imminent danger of capsizing.

Finally, the editors declare they are in pursuit of “a theory that can explain observations of the world,” whereas the skeptics seem content to point out gaps in that theory. “The Heartland Institute and its ilk,” they say, “are not trying to build a theory of anything.” Well, where to begin? I am not a scientist, and it certainly is not my place to tell the editors of such an esteemed publication as Nature what they ought to be about. But it is my understanding of the scientific method that it proceeds by the falsification of hypotheses, not their defense by every means possible, which is what Nature and regrettably other leading science journals have resorted to in the case of man-made climate change. The goal ought not to be to defend a hypothesis, but to test it, and if it fails, to consider competing hypotheses and test those just as rigorously.

Nature, it seems to this nonscientist observer, has lost its way. Until the journal opens its eyes, it will not be a serious voice on climate science.

Lees verder hier.

Heartland heeft video's van alle presentaties van zijn laatste klimaatconferentie op zijn website geplaatst. Zie hier.