On 30th April 2014 a Swedish meteorologist caused shock waves to reverberate across the international community of climate scientists. This was not because he had made a major discovery, nor had he been involved in a scientific scandal. But what he had done was to commit the cardinal sin of joining the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The reason why to some this was so shocking was because he wasn’t just any old Swedish meteorologist; he was Professor Lennart Bengtsson, the head of research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts before becoming its director until 1990. He had then moved on to become director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. Amongst his many accolades he had been awarded the Milutin Milankovic Medal in 1996, the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research in 2005, and the 51st International Meteorological Organization Prize of the World Meteorological Organization in 2006. In 2009 he was made an honorary fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society in recognition of his contribution to meteorology.

Only a fortnight later the same Swedish meteorologist caused an aftershock by resigning from the same foundation. The self-appointed guardians of scientific truth at DeSmog will tell you that it was because he hadn’t quite realised what a shower of reprobates he had joined and so he quickly learned to regret his actions. However, this is what Bengtsson said in his resignation letter:

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF…Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Bengtsson’s censorious colleagues seemed quick to prove his point by denouncing his accusation that they had denounced him. Gavin Schmidt, for example, dismissed his reference to McCarthyism as being “ridiculous”, suggesting instead that it was the brave scientists such as himself who were the real victims of a witch hunt.

Appalling though it may seem that Professor Bengtsson should have been treated this way, he cannot claim to have not seen it coming. Earlier that same year a paper, in which he had the temerity to suggest that the projected warming was unlikely to be anywhere near as bad as others had maintained, was rejected by the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters on the basis that his findings were “less than helpful“. By way of clarification, the peer reviewer concerned added the reproof, “actually it [the paper] is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate-skeptic media side“. When Bengtsson and others, such as meteorologist Hans von Storch, condemned the rejection as scandalous, the journal’s publisher was eager to play down the comments made by the peer reviewer, claiming instead that the paper simply did not meet the journal’s high standards. Yes, that old chestnut.

What Bengtsson had in fact been subjected to is a phenomenon referred to as ‘prosocial censorship’. It is a form of censorship in which work is rejected, and individuals cancelled, not because the work is substandard or flawed, but because it threatens to undermine a cherished ideology or someone else’s concept of societal safety and harmony. Such censorship is never portrayed as such, of course; the reason given is always that the individual(s) concerned were peddling substandard work leading to harmful misinformation.

For example, if you were to be an Emeritus Professor of Risk with an international reputation for expertise in forensic statistics, but you then produced work that called into question government figures that seemed to be misrepresenting the severity of a pandemic or the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, you could expect your career to be cancelled on the basis that you are peddling harmful misinformation.

If, for example, you were to be a consultant psychiatrist and psychotherapist with more than fifteen years of experience pioneering psychotherapy for patients with gender dysphoria, but you then dared to say that everything in your professional experience had led you to the inescapable conclusion that transgender activists were guilty of promoting inappropriate physical interventions to deal with a basically psychological problem, then you could expect to be denounced as “the most evil dangerous Nazi Psychiatrist in the world” — and a transphobe for good measure.

If, for example, you were a physicist at CERN with a bright future ahead of you, but were then to suggest that the unbalanced gender representation within your field had nothing to do with patriarchy and everything to do with inherent gender traits, then you could expect to be vilified as a misogynist and ostracised by your fellow scientists.

And if, for example, you were to be a prominent climate scientist who had pointed out that self-censorship was rife within your field and that it was responsible for the absence of papers published in prominent journals that quantify both the climatic and non-climatic causations of wildfires, then you could expect the likes of the Grantham Institute’s Bob Ward to bleat that “Unfortunately, his bogus narrative has predictably been seized upon by the opponents of action to tackle climate change“. Worse still, none other than Professor Ken Rice (think poor man’s Sabine Hossenfelder) would be moved to refer to you as if you are now dead to them:

Given that there can be preferred narratives within scientific communities, it is always good for there to be people who are regarded as credible and who push back against them. Even if you don’t agree with them, they can still present views that are worth thinking about. In my view, Patrick used to be one of those people. [His emphasis]

Oh the shame of it all!

In the above examples, the common narrative is one of a previously respected expert who had sadly fallen from grace because they couldn’t help themselves and had allowed their toxic opinions to compromise their ability to stick to the truth. As a consequence, they instantaneously transform into incompetent bad actors who are a danger to society, heartily deserving of prompt and emphatic prosocial censorship.

To be clear, these are not isolated examples. A recent research paper published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argued that both self-censorship and the prosocial censorship of colleagues are commonplace within the sciences — and the problem is only getting worse. Some of the figures make for grim reading:

A recent national survey of US faculty at four-year colleges and universities found the following: 1) 4 to 11% had been disciplined or threatened with discipline for teaching or research; 2) 6 to 36% supported soft punishment (condemnation, investigations) for peers who make controversial claims, with higher support among younger, more left-leaning, and female faculty; 3) 34% had been pressured by peers to avoid controversial research; 4) 25% reported being “very” or “extremely” likely to self-censor in academic publications; and 5) 91% reported being at least somewhat likely to self-censor in publications, meetings, presentations, or on social media.

There are, however, trends to be observed. Censorship is more of a problem in the social sciences than within STEM faculties. Women are keener to censor than are their male colleagues. And whilst right-leaning academics are more likely to engage in self-censorship, the left-leaning are far more likely to approve of the prosocial censorship of a colleague. Since prosocial censorship biases both the selection and promotion of staff members, it follows that the system is currently structured in such a way as to entrench the preponderance of left-leaning academics in senior positions. Worse still, the appetite for prosocial censorship is greater within the ranks of the PhDs than it is within faculty staff, suggesting that – to borrow a turn of phrase favoured by climate scientists – the problem is baked in for the future.

As the terminology suggests, those who advocate prosocial censorship will often do so for what they perceive to be the best of possible motives. Most commonly, the intention is to prevent research from being appropriated by “malevolent actors to support harmful policies and attitudes”. Sometimes the research is considered too dangerous to pursue, and in many other cases the censorship is aimed at protecting vulnerable groups. However, no matter how well-intended, the censorship comes with many obvious risks, the clearest of which is the possible suppression of the truth in the cause of a ‘greater good’.

At its most petty, all that may be at stake is one person’s reputation at the expense of a competitor. At its most extreme, prosocial censorship could involve a “wilful blindness of authorities” covering up a heinous crime for fear of offending a section of society, or for fear of giving encouragement to a right-wing that is assumed to be looking for any excuse to destabilise. Somewhere in the middle are the concerns harboured by the climate sceptic. Whilst we understand that science is not supposed to operate by consensus, we would, nevertheless, like to believe that an emergent consensus is the result of a developing common knowledge, rather than the result of social engineering enabled by prosocial censorship. Unfortunately, knowing that Professor Bengtsson’s experiences are far from unique does nothing to encourage such a belief. And, when all is said and done, that is the greatest shame of all. Prosocial censorship may seem a good idea, but it isn’t in the least bit desirable when it undermines the integrity of a discipline and causes widespread distrust amongst the wider community. That is the point, I suggest, at which we should all start giving a fig.

42 Comments

  2. SasjaL,

    Thank you for the correction. I’ve no idea why I made the gaffe. I even knew that Bengtsson was a Swedish name!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Thank you John, for a very effective tour d’horizon regarding this important topic.

    Sorry to quibble, but you still call him German at the end of line five!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. May I add Roger Pielke Jr to the list of outcasts? He was treated appallingly by – well, almost everyone. I guess there are plenty of examples, but his sprang to mind.

    It’s quite obvious that young researchers would be mad to admit to any doubt they might have when it comes to climate apocalypse. But of course they know they will be rewarded for talking hell on Earth. It’s no way to find out the actual facts.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. Mark,

    It’s not a quibble. It’s the necessary correction of a most stupid mistake on my part. I got my information from his Wikipedia entry, which states his nationality in neon capitals! Why I then called him German is a mystery I will take to my grave.

    Like

  7. Jit,

    Yes, Roger is another one. You could add Judith Curry to that list as well. All bad actors, don’t you know.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. I recently discovered that I was the subject of a “fact check”

    https://science.feedback.org/reviewed-content-author/ray-sanders/

    Now I am clearly a “nobody” in academic circles though, in the real world, quite a successful individual in private sector enterprise. So what was the motivation of a Facebook/Meta sponsored censor to dive in on a “nobody” like me only ever read in a relatively small online circle?

    I personally believe this is not just about acceptance or otherwise of academic views rather there is major information control/propaganda that is politically controlled……science does not get a look in.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Mike – thanks for that Roger Pielke Jr link, sums up the points John makes.

    John – regarding Judith Curry, if my memory serves me right, her move to the “dark side” started way back (2006?) when she interacted with Steve Mac over on Climate Audit. From then she was shunned.

    1 link Curry on the Wegman Reports « Climate Audit

    ps – it’s worth reading the 1st comment wrt NZ.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Ray,

    In the academic world you may be a “nobody”, but by carrying out thorough and methodical research into the unreliability of Met Office weather station data you are casting doubt on some of the data that underpins the climate change religion. Furthermore, your work is receiving attention on the internet, by virtue of the additional publicity it receives via the website of Paul Homewood and the Daily Sceptic. That makes you a threat, and therefore you have to be nobbled. It’s that simple, really, and quite disgraceful. You should be praised for seeking after the truth, but instead you have to be denigrated. Your work should be front page news on the BBC website, but in the unlikely event that the BBC ever mention you, it will be in the context of a BBC Verify hit job. That’s not how science should work, but sadly – in this area at least – that’s exactly how it works today.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. Mark, the “trial in absentia” actually amuses me. Such judgments are illegal under UK law unless the defendant deliberately refuses to be available. I was never consulted in any way even though I am demonstrably readily contactable. That the Met Office responded to Science Feedback’s enquiries but pointedly fails to discuss the issues with me rather demonstrates the weakness of their position.

    I am responding to this “fact check”, but in a way that I doubt anyone will anticipate. Will keep everyone posted in due course.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. Ray,

    “Trial in absentia” is a good way of putting it. I visited your accuser’s website and found this regarding the way they work:

    Once an article or claim is selected for review, one editor leads the fact-checking effort by contacting relevant experts, reading and summarizing the scientific literature on the topic, and writing a draft of the review. At least one other editor reviews the draft, challenges the claims, and pinpoints where additional clarity and references are needed.

    I also looked up the credentials of their team. Basically, you have two ‘Climate Editors’, neither of which has a background in climate science (they are geoscientists, to be precise). Add to that a number of science graduates of various stripes and a few science journalists. The rest is handled by their branding. They profess expertise, professionalism, integrity, objectivity and a thoroughness that you are automatically deemed to lack. But the reality is that they are only doing what you are – applying their layman skills to try to gain a better understanding of an important and highly technical subject matter. The difference lies only in their self-appointed jurisdiction.

    For what it is worth, I started to read their ‘debunking’ of your work and I gave up when it became obvious that the dictionary they had consulted has a very strange definition of ‘fabricated’. Also, keep in mind that they only address what they deem to be ‘influential misinformation’, so I would take that as a compliment.

    Liked by 3 people

  15. Science Feedback’s ‘Fact’ Check is about as useful as a fart in a space suit and just as unpleasant. But that’s post normal science for you: we can put men into space and on the moon, but we can’t stop them farting in their suits. But wait . . . . . yes, of course we can! We just need to stir a spoonful of ‘safe and effective’ Bovaer (as developed and extensively tested and approved by experts) into their morning cornflakes. It reduces climate change in outer space too.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Jaime.

    Keep in mind that the good folk of Science Feedback will think themselves to be very prosocial. After all, it is they who are defending science and the forces of rationality against an orc army. When I look at their team, I see a lot of eager, sincere faces staring back at me. Even so, I can’t help but think that they ought to pack it in and go get a proper job.

    Liked by 3 people

  17. Thanks Mike – the update is a horrifying epilogue to Donna Laframboise’s tale. I hope Roger is still remembered long after his tormentors are forgotten. His name should be a byword for honesty, integrity, grit and as the sort of scientist to aspire to be.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. From John R’s essay above:

    ” … Professor Ken Rice (think poor man’s Sabine Hossenfelder)”

    I have to admit that made me laugh out loud.

    And in one of his comments here, John R also refers to an Orc army, regarded by the prosocial as just so very evil. Well, I’ve had a t-shirt with “Orcs to Win” printed on the front. The prosocials are immediately tagged by their irresistible need to slang on it – such is their appreciation of satire.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. John – good Curry post – Joshua as usual baffles me with his/her comments.

    Partial quote – “I can assure you that if you want to see people dismissing the importance of such self–{and non-self)-censorship, and in fact actually applauding it, the comments section here will be a good go to location.”

    Liked by 1 person

  22. dfhunter,

    Yes, I’ve seen Joshua’s comment. He likes to play games. I do not intend humouring him any further, but I’ll leave it until tomorrow to let him know. In the meantime, it’s off to bed I go.

    Like

  23. I’ve just noticed that the Climate Etc post was echoed at WUWT. That will certainly mean that a lot of people will have read it, which the post richly deserved.

    I think I prefer the original cover art!

    Liked by 4 people

  24. Jit,

    Yes, it’s a shame that the art work was dropped, but Judith’s Web site doesn’t allow for it.

    You may also note that Ken Rice has been moved to write his own response to my article on his ATTP blog. That is his prerogative. What is not his prerogative, however, is to premise his response on an allegation that is demonstrably false. I will address his criticism when I get the chance later today. For obvious reasons, I will be doing this at Judith’s blog and not Ken’s. Quite frankly, he has seriously embarrassed himself and I look forward to pointing this out.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. I should add that I don’t even understand the WUWT art work. But maybe they didn’t want to use something that was religiously themed.

    Like

  26. For anyone who is interested, I have now posted my response to Ken Rice’s criticism on Judith Curry’s blog.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Sounds like a fair response to a point that surely not even attp’s friends believed. Now you have another troll to reply to, or preferably, ignore: a one-line drive by with what he or she hopes is a cutting remark, but is actually a wild swing and a miss.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Jit,

    I couldn’t have put it any better myself. I will, of course, be ignoring it. There is a lower threshold that I use to determine whether my attention is warranted. That comment didn’t even register on the scale.

    Like

  29. I’ve just come across this excellent article on the subject of censorship within science. It includes an extensive list of supplementary reading that should more than satisfy even the nuance-hungry Professor Rice.

    Spotlight on scientific censorship: A virtual collection

    It also reminds me of a point I should have made more of in my article: Not all censorship that occurs for reasons other than scientific merit can really be said to be prosocial. Human nature is such that vested interests abound and biases are often deeply ingrained.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. John, thanks for responding on the other post.

    What you contributed on Curry’s blog got my full approval. As I see it, there are three ways to fight the AGW/CO2 hoax:

    1. A “common sense” approach. This approach recognizes all the nonsense, such as politicians using fear and teen girls appealing to our emotions. Such antics fuel the skepticism of responsible adults.
    2. Data. Understanding that current temperatures indicate nothing close to anything truly “unprecedented”.
    3. The REAL science. Understanding that the 15 micron photons from CO2 (back-radiation) can NOT raise Earth’s average surface temperature.

    So your post was a major contribution to the “common sense” approach, with well-supported examples. REAL science does not censor science.

    For some reason, I have had trouble commenting on Curry’s blog today, but wanted to say how much I appreciated your efforts.

    Liked by 3 people

  31. Clint,

    I’m sorry not to have responded sooner, but I have been out all day.

    I’m not sure how much you already know about Climate Scepticism but you are more than welcome to hang about and browse. We are a small team of writers with various professional backgrounds who share the general concern that, when it comes to climate change risk management, the cure seems likely to be far worse than the disease. Under that general sentiment lie differences in approach and specialist interests. At the moment a lot of the interest lies in the rights and wrongs of net zero, particularly as it is being implemented here in the UK. Another common theme on this site is bias within the media and the lack of a genuine opportunity to challenge policy through democratic means. On the other hand, challenges to the basic physics behind climate change are not so prominent on this site. None of us are climate scientists by trade.

    For my part, I have tended to write on matters of science communication and issues arising at the science/policy interface. In particular, I have used my background expertise to discuss the conceptual and mathematical foundations for risk and uncertainty, particularly with regard to the IPCC and its obsession with scientific consensus. A good place to start if you want to read more of my work in this area is:

    What Climate Scientists Don’t Seem to Get

    I am proud to share this platform with professionals such as Mark Hodgson, Robin Guenier and Dr Jonathan Thacker (who I single out only because they are currently the most prolific contributors). Each writes with a clarity and attention to detail that puts many to shame. You will also find a number of prolific commenters, such as Jaime Jessop, who speak with passion and eloquence on matters of great importance. Yes, it may be a bit of an echo chamber, but (despite what our detractors might say) this is definitely not an orc website.

    Liked by 4 people

  32. Thank you for those kind words John. I must respond in kind by saying that your ability to lay out a complex argument in an accessible way lays an ace on the rest of us.

    Liked by 3 people

  35. Since publishing this article I have spoken to Professor Fenton about my citing him as an example of someone who became a victim of prosocial censorship. Whilst he approved of the article, and certainly had no objections to me citing him as an example, he was keen to point out that he had been a full professor when the cancellation first started and that his current status as emeritus professor is actually one of the consequences of such cancellation. Unfortunately, since this article has now been reposted several times, I no longer have editorial control and so I am not in a position to amend it. The best I can do is to post comments in an attempt to put the record straight. Hence this comment and the one I am about to post at Climate etc.

    Liked by 3 people

  37. dfhunter,

    Thanks for pointing out the derivation of the phrase. I think it is particularly relevant in such debates because the tendancy is for the individual to be censured by critics who do not adequately investigate what it is they criticise. If you look at the comment I’ve just posted at Climate etc. you will see that I have taken the opportunity to encourage further investigation before rash conclusions are drawn.

    Like

  38. Had a look at Climate etc & note B A Bushaw negative response, partial quote – “I recognize the right to doubt (be a skeptic), as long as I also have the right to reject those doubts, based on my scientific knowledge.”

    Then gives this link – The social anatomy of climate change denial in the United States | Scientific Reports

    1st abstract statement – “Using data from Twitter (now X), this study deploys artificial intelligence (AI) and network analysis to map and profile climate change denialism across the United States”

    “scientific knowledge” my ass.

    ps – interesting link by Christos in comments above yours “Ancient forest uncovered by melting ice in the Rocky Mountains” which I’ll put on Open Mic.

    Like

  39. dfhunter,

    Yes, I’ve seen the comment. He obviously hasn’t heard of the Online Safety Bill and the powers to be invested in Ofcom. He needs some educating but that will have to wait until tomorrow.

    As for his right to reject, I will be keen to find out just exactly what he thinks he is rejecting. Fools and angels anyone?

    Liked by 1 person

  40. John, don’t worry about being slow to respond — as you see, I sometimes set the record for slow responses….

    I’m glad to find this blog. Skeptics need this. I don’t know about the UK, but in the USA, the “climate science” is almost entirely political. Skeptics are largely on the political right, while Warmists are largely on the political left. The “debates” could apply to any political issue.

    But the laws of physics are NOT up for debate. Issac Newton published his works in the late 1600s. Rudolph Clausius published in mid-to-late 1800s. All of their work has withstood the test of time. People that try to debate such science just don’t understand it.

    I prefer to only discuss the science, but I recognize the wisdom on this blog. Not everyone understands the real science, so there are other ways to see through the nonsense.

    The real science isn’t that hard to grasp. I like to say, “If I can understand it, anyone can understand it”. There’s a lot to it, but it’s not hard to understand. I could explain it to a responsible adult, that had no background in science, in about an hour. If the responsible adult understood the basics — like photons, frequency, energy, heat, molecules, etc, — then it would probably only take about 10 minutes.

    The important thing for you, and your friends on this blog, to understand is that “You’re correct”! The science is on your side.

    Keep up the great effort.

    Liked by 2 people

  41. dfhunter,

    I see that B A Bushaw isn’t going away. Judging by his latest effort he is just a troll, and not a particularly good one either. I won’t be bothering with a reply, I have much better things to do than provide him/her with further opportunities to abuse his/her keyboard.

    Like

  42. It would be remiss of me not to mention here the recent Office For Students (OfS) ruling, fining the University of Sussex £585,000 for a failure to uphold free speech in respect of the Kathleen Stock affair:

    The OfS criticised the university’s policy statement on trans and non-binary equality, saying its requirement to “positively represent trans people” and an assertion that “transphobic propaganda [would] not be tolerated” could lead staff and students to “self-censor”.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9vr4vjzgqo

    I could, of course, have used Kathleen Stock as another example for my article, thereby giving my detractors over at ATTP further cause to blather on about insincerity, bias in example selection, and lack of seriousness.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.