Via Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/where-were-you-when-i-needed-you
“Where were you when I needed you?” – Climate scientist Jos de Laat on the DOE CWG and the biases of the climate beat
This is a guest post by Jos de Laat, an accomplished climate scientist at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI). Jos explains of this guest post — “this is first and foremost a personal note on events unfolding the last couple of weeks that I had to get off my chest as they struck a particular sensitive chord.” I am thrilled to be able to bring Jos’ voice to a broader audience. For me, Jos experiences below provide a bit of a window into “consensus” enforcement by a small group of scientists and reinforced by their allies in the media. Jos writes something that I hear from a lot of scientists: “I felt powerless to set the record straight.” You are invited to discuss Jos’ post in the comments below. — RP
Excerpt:
Just like Roger (Pielke Jr.), I have recently been invited by both CarbonBrief and the Associated Press to comment on the recent DOE CWG report as one of my papers was referred to in that report. Associated Press also asked if I could provide my thoughts on the associated EPA proposal and would be willing to answer to a number of questions.
…
The current sudden interest in my paper and the context in which this happened struck me as particularly odd. Remember, our papers were published ~20 years go. Although they got some traction within scientific circles there was little interest beyond that.
…
Where were Associated Press and Carbon Brief — or other journalists — when I needed them?
Formal assessments are produced by humans, and thus are of course fallible. The IPCC, as well as the DOE CWG, deserves scrutiny and accountability. Such efforts make science better, irrespective of politics.
…
However, the Carbon Brief and Associated Press fact checks left me with an uncomfortable feeling. Their sudden interest in my work could not have been out of interest in the science. Remember, our paper is twenty years old and there has been no interest outside of some academic circles.
I have little else but to conclude that their interest is politically motivated and ideologically biased. Were it not for the DOE CWG report I am sure they would never have contacted me.
And it is not as if Carbon Brief and Associated Press are constantly keeping close track of any contentious topic in climate science. If so, they would long ago have started to check with Roger on many topics and issues he has discussed in the peer-reviewed literature and here at THB.
…
And on the point of Fact Checking, I personally do not think that there is a place for media “fact checking” in science as it is now often done. Most often, such efforts seem to be aimed to discredit an particular view or opinion that is viewed to be politically inconvenient to the allies of those doing the fact checking. That is not very scientific.
If you want to be critical of certain aspects of science, then be scientific in your criticism. The rules and guidelines on how to do that have long been established. And we as scientists should stick to those same rules and hold each other accountable. We are really the only ones who can correct ourselves and we should not let politics get in the way.
Jos de Laat, August 2025
#
