Op-Ed: Climate Scientists Should Buck Up or Bow Out Regarding Criticism
A recent peer-reviewed paper published in Nature and fawning coverage of the story in The U.K.’s Guardian indicate that many climate scientists are so sensitive that they are unable to handle criticism of their work, suggesting that they and their work should not be subject to critique, even when it is demonstrably wrong, because it hurts their feelings and ultimately, their work.
It appears they are using victimhood as a shield from undergoing the back-and-forth exchange of ideas inherent in the scientific method, especially when scientists propose that their research demands political action.
The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with actual observations.
The Guardian article, “We have emotions too: Climate scientists respond to attacks on objectivity,” is a remarkable exercise in self-pity, featuring climate scientists venting about the supposedly unjust criticism they face. This is in reaction to the pushback received after the publication of an idiotic survey by The Guardian last May.
These self-appointed climate saviors insist that their projections should be accepted without question, and when they aren’t, they moan about how harsh and unfair the world has been to them. This isn’t science under attack — it is fragile egos crying foul when the rest of us refuse to buy into their doomsday narrative.
The Guardian piece is full of climate scientists’ complaints about being criticized, a situation that apparently causes them great distress. They whimper about public skepticism as though it were some kind of assault on their personal well-being.
Welcome to the world of public debate, where people will scrutinize, question, and sometimes rudely dismiss claims that seem dubious.
But The Guardian seems determined to present these professionals not as robust researchers capable of handling criticism, but as delicate flowers wilting under the harsh glare of public doubt.
Instead of addressing substantive climate criticisms — such as failed climate models, failed climate predictions or the fact that climate policies often do more harm than good — these scientists turn to emotional appeals. They argue that the public’s harsh words are as great a threat as climate change itself. They even suggest that “climate anxiety” is exacerbated by online abuse from skeptics.
One theme that dominates The Guardian article is the scientists’ characterization of public scrutiny as if this pushback is coming from people in places of privilege. It’s a clever rhetorical strategy, designed to make criticism seem not only misguided but morally wrong.
By framing dissenters as clueless oppressors who “harm” marginalized scientists, the article tries to flip the script. Suddenly, it’s not about whether the climate models hold up under scrutiny; it’s about whether the critics are hurting the scientists’ feelings.
The Nature article doubles down on this victimhood narrative, describing scientists as burdened not only by the existential threat of climate change but by the hostility of the public.
A whole herd of climate advocates scurried off social media platform X to their ideological shelter, Nature Climate Change, to cry for help, when public skepticism became too much for their fragile egos to handle.
This follows a trend of other academics seen running away from supposedly toxic criticism. An Oct. 15 article by Cambridge University Press titled “The Vibes Are Off: Did Elon Musk Push Academics Off Twitter?” documents this retreat and shows a significant lapse in activity, especially among “blue check mark” users, following Musk’s acquisition.
These scientists clearly needed a safe space where their feelings could be stroked, rather than questioned. Forget rigorous defense of their models, theories and predictions.
The new concern is all about defending their delicate psyches from the big bad skeptics who post mean tweets on Twitter/X.
Meanwhile, facts are still stubborn things. And, as documented on the Failed Climate Predictions Timeline, almost none of those science-based climate predictions that made media headlines over the past 30 years have materialized.
So, to the climate scientists who complain about “abuse” on X: Toughen up. If you can’t defend your models and predictions against public criticism, especially when there is a history of failure, maybe you’re not as confident in your conclusions as you claim to be. If you can’t, perhaps it is time to buck up or bow out.
Anthony Watts (awatts@heartland.org) is a Senior Fellow for Environment and Climate at The Heartland Institute.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
