Climate change and the integrity of science

Here is the lead letter published in today’s issue of Science magazine. It’s signed by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences


We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarialβ€” scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.”

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.

But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world’s scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business- as-usual practices. We urge our policymakers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.

We also call for an end to McCarthy- like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.

The signatories are all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences but are not speaking on its behalf or on behalf of their institutions.

Full Text |Β Β  PDF
Supporting Online Material – Signatories and their affiliations|


Similar articles

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

11 responses to “Climate change and the integrity of science

  1. I’ve also tweeted this open letter along with the full list of signatories.
    We can only hope that the world will finally start listening and demand our political servants take action to mitigate AGW.
    You can play a part here, pass the letter on to your friends and associates, and , your local politician. Also, strand up and be counted, tell any deniers you encounter that they are wrong, they’ve been conned by vested interests – then ask them to have a good look at their sources of information.


  2. Humph.
    Bah Humbug.

    Believers worshipping at the Church of Al Gore!
    Al Gore Sux.



  3. That’s a compelling argument, Cedric.

    He’s fat, you know.


  4. Frank Kelly

    Why was this signed by only 255 NAS scientists out of a total of 2450 in the academy (2100 members + 350 foreign associates) ? Not even one tenth of the academy! I have been arguing with climate change deniers for months but this letter is not of much help.


  5. Frank, that’s question you should put to the NAC.

    But I think the note at the bottom makes clear that while all the signatories are NAC members they were not pretending to speak on behalf of the NAC or their institutions.

    It is a statement of a group of distinguished scientists rather than a statement of an organisation.

    And remember, Frank, the statement is not so much about the science but the McCarthy style attacks on science and scientists.

    Sent from my iPod


  6. Frank, that’s question you should put to the NAC.

    It’s a good question.
    No point in doing things by half measures.

    However, if the mouth breathers out there start to complain then…hit them with this video.

    I especially like it because they speak in simple, impossible-to-misinterpret sentences and they speak…very, …very …slowly.

    (You can easily visualize the climate denier cretins furrowing their collective brows and trying to say “Nuh Uh!” at the appropriate moments.)


  7. Thanks Cedric, for posting a video so that us cretins can understand.

    As you know, we are VERY stupid, and I really appreciate you taking time off from your job of “Bad Cop” in helping us

    I REALLY appreciate it.

    Now run along and start kicking those who disagree.

    Kick them hard Cedric, you know you love it.


    You know you love it, the violence makes you weak at the knees, just like your anti-Christian, anti-semitic chums Ken and “WatchingtheDeniers”


  8. Why bother David?

    This is not up to your “rusty steel bar” tantrum.

    If you have an issue about the science – why not discuss it rationally?

    If you have a psychological issue – please take it elsewhere. It does nothing for you, or anyone else, to air it here.


  9. Watching the Deniers

    I like the fact they call a spade a spade:

    “Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers…”

    Sceptics? I believe deniers is the correct term. I understand the sensitivity to the term, and indeed by blog cops some flak… but deniers is what they should be called.

    They “deny” the compelling evidence before them.


  10. Richard Christie

    So you’ve decided to return and comment here again Andy?


  11. Richard Christie

    Sorry, I mean David.


Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s