Ever wonder about the neutrality (or lack thereof) of scientists investigating the subject of global warming? Does it seem that far too many of them eagerly sound alarm bells when it comes to documenting and communicating the potential consequences of human‐​induced climate change to the public? Well, that little voice inside your head telling you something is awry appears to be vindicated based on new research published in the journal Public Understanding of Science.


In an article that is both enlightening and damning at the same time, Senja Post (2016) set out to investigate the “ideals and practices” of German scientists in communicating climate change research findings to the public. Post accomplished her objective by conducting and analyzing a representative survey of German scientists holding the academic rank of full professor and who were actively engaged in climate change research. Altogether, 300 such scientists were identified and invited to participate in her survey, and 42 percent of them responded with a completed questionnaire in which they were queried about “various aspects of climate change, their attitudes toward publicly communicating scientific uncertainty, and their media relations.”


According to Post, the results of her survey indicated that “the more climate scientists are engaged with the media the less they intend to point out uncertainties about climate change and the more unambiguously they confirm the publicly held convictions that it is man‐​made, historically unique, dangerous and calculable.” Similarly, the more scientists were convinced of the alarmist narrative that rising atmospheric CO₂ is causing dangerous climate change, the more they worked with the media to disseminate that narrative. Post’s survey also revealed that “climate scientists object to publishing a result in the media significantly more when it indicates that climate change proceeds more slowly rather than faster than expected,” which finding, in her words, “gives reason to assume that the German climate scientists are more inclined to communicate their results in public when they confirm rather than contradict that climate change is dramatic.”


Such findings are saddening and shameful, highlighting a near‐​ubiquitous bias among climate scientists (at least in Germany) who willfully suppress the communication of research findings and uncertainties to the public when they do not support the alarmist narrative of CO₂-induced global warming. Such deceit has no place in science.


 


Reference


Post, S. 2016. Communicating science in public controversies: Strategic considerations of the German climate scientists. Public Understanding of Science 25: 61–70.