A few weeks ago, an article by Professor Ulf Büntgen titled ‘The Importance of Distinguishing Climate Science from Climate Activism’ created a significant stir when it was published in Nature’s npj Climate Action. Büntgen’s commentary was lauded in climate-sceptic circles for calling out the growing trend of scientists blurring the lines between objective research and ideological activism. His argument was clear: scholars should not have apriori interests in their study outcomes, and activists should not masquerade as scientists.
Büntgen’s call for a clear separation between climate science and activism was welcomed as a refreshing deviation from the usual climate alarmism. As Judith Curry tweeted:
Kudos to Nature for publishing this
"I am concerned by climate scientists becoming climate activists, because scholars shouldn't have a priori interests in the outcome of their studies. Likewise, I am worried about activists who pretend to be scientists"https://t.co/NapJpiDWFV
Büntgen’s stance was a significant departure from the ideologically motivated narratives that often dominate climate science discourse.
This was lauded in the climate skeptosphere, climate realist circles or whatever we are calling ourselves these days, as a welcome change from the constant barrage of ideologically motivated journal publishing on climate topics.
As with Patrick Brown, people appreciated that sane and ethical people were willing to put their heads up in opposition to the long march of climate alarmism.
However, barely ten days after Büntgen’s commentary, Nature rushed out an article titled ‘2023 Summer Warmth Unparalleled Over the Past 2,000 Years’, co-authored by Jan Esper, Max Torbenson and, ironically, I happened to notice, Ulf Büntgen himself. This paper claimed that the summer of 2023 was the warmest in the Northern Hemisphere in over two millennia, exceeding the 95% confidence range of natural climate variability by more than half a degree Celsius. The article emphasised the urgency of implementing international agreements to reduce carbon emissions, framing recent temperature extremes as clear evidence of anthropogenic climate change exacerbated by an El Niño event.
And I’m not exaggerating when I say rushed…
This Nature piece is part of a long tradition in paleoclimatology that uses tree rings as pre-instrumental temperature proxies and then grafts instrumental records onto these proxies to establish a narrative of unprecedented modern warming. This approach, popularised by Michael Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” graph, has been criticised for its methodological flaws and for downplaying natural climate variability, such as the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period.
The Hypocrisy Unveiled
Büntgen’s involvement in the Nature article raises glaring questions about his commitment to the principles he espoused in his earlier commentary. How can one reconcile his call for separating science and activism with his participation in a study that clearly advocates for immediate policy action based on its findings?
In his Nature commentary, Büntgen warned against the dangers of scientists becoming activists, stating, “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, as this can be a misleading form of instrumentalisation”. Yet, the abstract of the Nature article he co-authored concludes with a call to action for rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, aligning more with advocacy than with the dispassionate pursuit of scientific knowledge.
Although 2023 is consistent with a greenhouse gases-induced warming trend that is amplified by an unfolding El Niño event, this extreme emphasises the urgency to implement international agreements for carbon emission reduction.
Tree Rings and Temperature Proxies: A Dubious Foundation
The reliance on tree rings as temperature proxies is fraught with uncertainty. Tree ring data, which may at times be useful for understanding certain climatic trends, are influenced by multiple factors, including precipitation, CO2 levels and soil conditions. As Anthony Watts pointed out in his detailed critique in Human Events, these proxies are often used selectively to support predetermined conclusions about climate trends. The Roman Warm Period (1–250 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (950–1250 AD) are well-documented in historical and archaeological records, yet they are conspicuously absent in the reconstructions presented in such studies.
The study, Esper, J. et al. Nature, 2023, is using an old statistical trick pioneered by Michael Mann, PhD. in his hockey stick graph controversy, where estimated temperatures from tree rings and other proxies (used because no thermometer readings exist prior to about 1850) far into the past are grafted onto more reliable temperatures measured in the present and presented as one unified dataset, when in fact they are different. …
For example, an article about the study in the BBC showed this graph, which is highly reminiscent of Mann’s original “hockey stick” graph. …
That graph is highly misleading, if not flat-out fabrication. It suffers from the same sort of issues in Mann’s original “hockey stick” graph such as suppressed climate variability over the past 2000 years. We know from other studies that the Roman Warm Period (from 1–250 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (950 to c. 1250) existed, but they have been erased from the graph presented to the public.
The value of tree rings in paleoclimatology is highly debatable. While they can provide some insights into past climate conditions, their interpretation is complex and often contentious. The methodological issues associated with tree rings, including their susceptibility to various environmental factors, make them less reliable as standalone indicators of historical climate variability.
Anthony also notes:
The lead author, Jan Esper, confirms by quotes given to the BBC, that he is in fact using this study as a vehicle to elicit change.
The authors say the key conclusion from their work is the need for rapid reductions in emissions of planet-warming gases. “The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be and the more difficult it will be to mitigate or even stop that process and reverse it,” said lead author, Prof. Jan Esper from Johannes Gutenberg University, in Germany.
“That is just so obvious,” he said. “We should do as much as possible, as soon as possible.”
This admission makes the study more about climate advocacy than science, and the media fell for it.
The Advocacy Science Conundrum
Büntgen’s dual role as a critic of activism in science and a co-author of an advocacy-driven study highlights a troubling trend in climate research. This blending of science and advocacy undermines public trust in scientific institutions. When scientists take on activist roles, they risk compromising the perceived objectivity of their work. This is particularly problematic in climate science, where policy decisions with far-reaching economic and social consequences are often based on ideologically captured academic scientific recommendations.
Questioning Büntgen’s Motives
Büntgen’s contradictory actions suggest a deeper issue. Is his sudden pivot to advocacy a genuine shift in understanding, or is it driven by other motivations? The timing of his involvement in the Nature article, so soon after his call for separating science from activism, is suspicious. It raises the possibility that Büntgen might be playing both sides of the fence – garnering credibility among sceptics with his initial commentary, while aligning with the mainstream climate narrative to maintain academic standing and funding.
Such duplicity is not uncommon in academia, where the pressure to secure grants and publish in high-impact journals can lead researchers to align their findings with prevailing narratives. Büntgen’s case is a stark reminder of the complexities and potential conflicts of interest in climate science.
The Ideological Capture of Academia
The current state of climate science reflects a broader societal issue where the predetermined narrative of an urgent need to address climate change has led to the ideological capture of academia. Research is often driven by political and ideological motivations rather than an unbiased pursuit of knowledge. This ideological capture can lead to the selective use of data and the promotion of specific narratives that support policy goals, rather than providing a balanced view of the available evidence.
This ideological capture of academia has fuelled the narrative of an urgent need to address climate change. This urgency is more about political agendas than scientific necessity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for instance, has been criticised for overstating the certainty of anthropogenic warming relative to natural climate variability. The IPCC’s summaries for policymakers often present a simplified and sometimes alarmist view of climate science, which can distort public perception and policy debates. This tendency to “sell” climate science as a crisis requiring immediate and drastic action can lead to the implementation of policies that are not justified by the underlying science.
A Call for Intellectual Independence
To address these issues, it is crucial to foster a culture of critical scrutiny and intellectual independence within the scientific community. Scientists should be encouraged to question dominant paradigms and explore alternative hypotheses without fear of professional ostracisation. The peer review process must be transparent and robust enough to withstand political and ideological pressures.
Additionally, the media, policymakers and the public need to be educated about the complexities of climate science. Understanding that scientific knowledge evolves and that uncertainty is a natural part of scientific inquiry can help temper the often sensationalist portrayal of climate issues in the media.
Conclusion
Büntgen’s initial call for distinguishing between climate science and activism was both timely and necessary. However, his involvement in the Nature article underscores the difficulty of maintaining such a distinction in practice. The challenge lies not only in separating science from activism but also in ensuring that “climate science”, as it’s come to be known, remains a rigorous, objective discipline that can inform effective and rational policymaking. Only through a recommitment to the principles of scientific inquiry and a vigilant defense against ideological influences can climate science ever hope to provide the guidance needed for any type of policy decisions.
In summary, the current state of climate science is a reflection of broader societal trends where the predetermined narrative of an urgent need to address climate change has led to the conflation of science and activism. While activism plays a crucial role in raising awareness and driving action, it is essential that scientific research remains an unbiased and objective pursuit. Only then can we hope to develop policies that are both effective and based on a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of our climate system.
The Final Irony
Perhaps the greatest irony of all is that Büntgen himself exemplifies the very issue he critiques. By participating in an advocacy-driven study, he undermines his own argument for the separation of science and activism. This hypocrisy not only tarnishes his credibility but also highlights the broader problem of ideological influence in climate science. If we are to trust science, we must first ensure that it remains free from the taint of activism. Only then can we have confidence in the policies derived from it.
Climate change, as presented by mainstream narratives, is fraught with uncertainties and driven by ideological motivations rather than urgent, unbiased scientific inquiry. Policies derived from such skewed science are more likely to cause harm than benefit. By exposing the hypocrisy of figures like Büntgen, we can begin to reclaim a more balanced and objective approach to understanding and addressing actual environmental issues.
You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.