It has long been suspected that political correctness has had an impact on science, especially in highly politicized fields like climatology. That suspicion has now started to generate research. Here is the first PNAS foray into this new field. Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists PNAS https://www.pnas.org › doi › pnas.2301642120 by CJ Clark · 2023 — Prosocial motives for censorship may explain four observations: 1) widespread public availability of scholarship coupled with expanding ... Abstract Science is among humanity’s greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality). Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions. The fundamental principle of science is that evidence—not authority, tradition, rhetorical eloquence, or social prestige—should triumph. This commitment makes science a radical force in society: Challenging and disrupting sacred myths, cherished beliefs, and socially desirable narratives. Consequently, science exists in tension with other institutions, occasionally provoking hostility and censorship (1). In liberal democracies, government censorship of science is rare (although see ref. 2). The greatest threats to scientific openness are often more diffuse and disguised as legitimate scientific criticism (e.g., rejection of dangerous and false information) (3). Because scientific censorship is difficult to detect and measure, it is rarely empirically studied. Here, we discuss historical and modern evidence regarding the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship. Our analysis suggests that censorship is often impelled by prosocial concerns (4–6) and by scientists (7). We also identify unknowns regarding scientific censorship and highlight how scientific institutions can improve transparency to facilitate the exploration of these unknowns. . . . .
Here's an interesting discussion that touches on some related issues: I find it especially significant that these two, who are by no means flakes or marginal crackpots, take it as an established fact that the officially mandated scare narratives on both COVID-19 and climate change are largely bull$#!+. Some extremely greedy people have made extremely large amounts of money from both of them, and they don't care that millions have died or could die as a result.
~ The only " science" regarding climate change catastrophe is political science — largely originating from the U.N.
Liberals use political correctness as de facto censorship to silence any and all debate that does not fit their liberal narrative regardless of its truthfulness.
The issue won't go away. The Ideological Capture of Academia: Scientific Censorship Motivated by Prosocial Concerns Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) This ideological capture is evident in various fields, in particular climate science, where dissenting views on issues like climate change and policy responses are almost always marginalized.
But, but, but... 99% of scientists believe man made global warming is real! How can there be any dissenting papers if something is so universally accepted?
Let me see if I got this right, giant multinational corporations that are at risk of losing billions of dollars in revenue and have the resources to hire lobbyists, lawyers, scientists, and advertising agencies are NOT censoring science, but scientists who devout their entire lives to the science of climate change and have very little to gain by lying about climate change, are one doing the censoring? Any scientist who can disprove anthropogenic climate change, would be an instant celebrity and would be very rich. There is much more incentive for scientists to try and disprove anthropogenic climate change, then to create a conspiracy to pretend it exists, unless... anthropogenic climate change was real after all, and the only entities trying to censor the science are the oil companies.
Lols a nothing “research” paper with zero actual results. It is more a grizzle than a proposal. I have to wonder if the Author is the same person that the smithsonian was responding to with this letter lols!
It isn’t 99% - last I looked it was still around 95 - 97. Let’s don an equivalency - 99% of the medical profession say you cannot cure cancer by rubbing a purple coloured stone on your stomach or drinking some homeopathic “remedy” that has less than a trace element contained in the water!
Oh! Bunkum! Prove it! Prove that somehow the UN is putting “political pressure on 197 different countries to force scientists to alter research outcomes
The source paper (linked) was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The authors are: Cory J. Clark, Lee Jussim, Komi Frey and William von Happel.
No, they probably are. But you misunderstand the reason. The oil companies care about profits, not revenue. It is better for them to make $100G in profit on revenue of $200G than $50G in profit on revenue of $500G. See how that works? And as I have proved, the inelastic demand for fossil fuels, especially oil, means that the political suppression of fossil fuel production in the name of the CO2 climate narrative enables the oil companies to make those higher profits while producing less energy: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations Have you checked out the price of oil recently? They have a lot to gain: grant money, teaching jobs, tenure, "consulting" jobs, status, etc. See? You always have to resort to the disingenuous strawman. No credible climate scientist claims that anthropogenic factors haven't contributed to climate change at all. What has been amply disproved is that CO2, specifically, has caused the majority of the return to more normal Holocene temperatures since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years. You mean if one disproved the CO2 climate narrative? That's just garbage, as many have disproved it -- beginning with Angstrom, over 100 years ago -- and they aren't. The climategate emails proved that claim is false. The "scientists" openly discussed plans to alter or remove temperature data that were inconvenient to the CO2 climate narrative. As I have proved, it is in the financial interest of oil companies to encourage the political suppression of oil production in the name of the CO2 climate narrative.
When actually examined, such claims always turn out to be bald falsehoods. That is nothing but disingenuous garbage with no resemblance to an equivalency. Any competent physics undergrad with access to a university optics lab can prove that adding CO2 to ordinary sea level atmospheric air has almost no effect on its infrared absorption properties, and thus conclusively disprove the CO2 climate narrative. Sorry, but no amount of absurd and disingenuous propaganda from you can alter that fact.
Actually, it does not matter what percentage you say it is, because it is a made up number. And it does sway back and forth between 97 and 99%. And they are all completely fictional, simply attempting to use "Appeal to Authority" to get people to accept their claims. But here, maybe you should look through this article a bit, then you can stop repeating those silly claims as nauseum. https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=7ae156bf1157 Though even a basic reading, it quickly becomes obvious that all of those claims are almost entirely made up. But here are a few parts that really jumped out to me as a skeptic: OK, so in 2004 they went through 235 papers, and only 25% endorsed their claims. Then you get the key word, "interpreted". That means it was likely a rather neutral stance, but they decided to accept it as backing their beliefs. And the other 25%? I guess they just assumed all of those backed their beliefs as well. Then there is this gem: OK, so they studied 14 papers. Really? Out of all the papers published every year, they only looked at 14? And surprise-surprise, one of them was the previous one that made the 97% claim. Talk about cherry picking from hell! In other words, I bet they only selected 14 papers that they knew already backed that claim, and ignored absolutely everything that contradicted it. This is not even bad science, this is almost the definition of anti-science. I could even prove that 97% of anthropologists believe that blacks are really apes. And the funny thing is, that would likely be far more true than these claims as I would not have to cherry pick it at all, it is the absolute truth. I would simply neglect to point out that Caucasians, and every other group of humans are classified as apes as well. But that obviously would not by my point, I am trying to prove something absolutely stupid by using facts, simply trying to spin it in a way I want to use to sway the beliefs of others. Remember I am not only a skeptic, I also believe that most in your camp are dead wrong. That the warming and the effects are going to be far more severe than any of you even dare to claim will happen in the worst of your scare stories. You all talk about inches of sea level rise, I am still predicting many meters of sea level rise in the future. You all worry about scattered glaciers, I predict that before this ends much of Canada will more closely resemble Oklahoma than it does what we see today. Oh, and of course the tropical cyclones globally will worsen, warm water always does that. And those torrential monsoons will help the ecosystems that had been trapped in an arid condition for tens of thousands of years to return to what they were before this newest glacial cycle started. This all has happened before, it will happen again. But I can also spot bad science and propaganda, and chuckle as I burst the balloons on either side when they try to use it.
You like to throw around the word "proved" but I'm wondering if you really know the meaning because so far, you haven't proved anything, just offered up conjecture. Also, as you have admitted, Angstrom's work was over 100 years ago. Since then, researchers have shown that Angstrom's work was sloppy and CO2 does in fact act as a greenhouse gas when it is at higher concentrations. Also, I apologize for not being informed about the latest climate conspiracies. What are the climategate emails?
False. To prove is just to provide an argument that cannot be refuted. You cannot refute my argument, and neither can anyone else. That makes it a proof. Your decision not to know, and to deny, a fact that has been proved does not mean it hasn't been proved. So was Einstein's, genius. No they haven't. Those pushing the CO2 climate narrative have only claimed it was sloppy, but in fact, his result -- that adding CO2 to ordinary sea-level atmospheric air does not significantly alter its infrared absorption properties -- is easily confirmed by any competent physics undergrad with access to a university optics lab. <sigh> That's not what Angstrom refuted. Adding CO2 to "standard atmosphere" air with 0% humidity does make it act as a greenhouse gas, which is why top-of-atmosphere measures show a strong greenhouse effect of increased CO2: there is almost no water vapor at that altitude. It is near sea level (except in winter at high latitude, where the air is also very dry) where CO2 has almost no effect on infrared absorption, and thus on climate, because there is already so much water vapor (and natural CO2) in the air. The climategate emails can hardly be considered "the latest," as they came out 15 years ago. I used to tell people to Google stuff, but now Google only shows results that are considered to be in Google's interest.
Here are some updates from the scientific censorship battlefront. Suppression of Science and Inconvenient Truths Andy May Censorship and science are incompatible. . . .
I've noticed a recent trend in scientific articles where most researchers are trying to tout how their discoveries could lead to "more environmentally friendly" technology in their scientific papers, no matter how distant of a connection, or far-fetched the claim is. It seems to be the new buzz word, and I suspect it is largely driven by trying to win precious grant money. Apparently the people in charge of distributing the grant money don't really understand the specifics of the science in each niche scientific field, and are just more likely to give money if it appears the research will "help the environment". With climatology and renewable technology being like a religion, this seems to be the dominant shaping force in scientific circles today. It should be pointed out that much more than half the funding for scientific research comes from government and academic institutions, rather than the private sector.
It's been universal for decades in climate research, where the authors of papers that seriously challenge the CO2 climate narrative nevertheless feel obliged to genuflect to it with some kind of half-hearted disclaimer somewhere in the paper. Such papers are of course counted as part of the fictitious 97% "consensus."
From the PNAS abstract: “. . . Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. . . .”
