Introduction

In his 1961 farewell address, President Eisenhower warned that science, being costly and complex, could be manipulated by government interests. Today, climate science faces this risk—not because most scientists are dishonest, but because institutional pressures and poor communication distort the facts. Scientists face biases from universities and funding bodies, while science writers often exaggerate or misunderstand research, leaving the public with a skewed view. I believe climate change is mostly a natural process, with human influence that isn’t always bad, and science should be transparent and grounded in data. This page explores these challenges and why we need better science communication.

Plato thinking.

Pressures on Scientists

Most scientists aren’t driven by politics, but they work under pressure from institutions like universities, which often lean left—studies show 60–70% of U.S. academics in science fields share this perspective. This can shape what research gets published. Journals may favor studies that support alarming climate narratives, as papers with dramatic conclusions are cited 2–3 times more often than neutral ones. Government funding adds to this pressure. In 2023, state and federal agencies spent about $35 billion on natural resources, employing around 195,000 people. Much of this funding goes to research that aligns with policy goals, making scientists hesitant to challenge mainstream views or share raw data that might contradict them.

This lack of transparency can hide uncertainties. For example, computer models often predict future climate trends, but they’ve been wrong before—like 1970s warnings of a new ice age or 2000s predictions of an ice-free Arctic by 2013. These models rely on assumptions that don’t fully capture nature’s complexity, yet they’re rarely questioned publicly because of the pressure to conform. Science should be open and data-driven, not shaped by institutional biases.

Science Communication Failures

Science writers in the press often worsen these distortions. Many lack the training to understand climate research, and studies show 40% of climate news articles misrepresent the uncertainty in predictions, turning cautious findings into sensational headlines about “climate emergencies.” Meanwhile, only about 20% of climate scientists regularly communicate with the public, leaving a gap for others to fill. Al Gore’s 1992 book *Earth in the Balance* is a prime example. Gore, who isn’t a scientist, claimed a 20-foot sea level rise by 2100—far beyond the 0.3–1 meter projected by experts—because his goal was advocacy, not accuracy. His book sold well by attaching a “scientific” label to his ideas, showing how science’s authority is often misused to gain credibility.

This “mystical aura” around science makes it hard for the public to separate fact from exaggeration. When every claim is labeled as “scientific,” people may accept unproven ideas without question. Scientists need to communicate directly with the public, sharing clear, transparent data so we can understand what’s really happening with the climate, not just what sells books or grabs headlines.

Climate Science in Perspective

Climate change is mostly a natural process, with human influence that isn’t always bad. Nature has cycles—like shifts in ocean currents or sunlight—and small, unpredictable changes called background noise. Computer models often miss these, leading to unreliable predictions. For example, some claim the global temperature has risen 1.2 degrees Celsius since 1850, after the Little Ice Age, a cold period from 1300 to 1850. That’s about 0.006 degrees per year, a tiny change that could be natural, as temperatures warmed after the Little Ice Age ended. We don’t even know the global temperature in 1850 accurately—few places had thermometers, and models fill in the gaps, which I don’t trust.

Other claims are shaky too. CO2 levels weren’t a steady 280 parts per million before 1800—plant fossils called stomata show they varied from 260 to 340 ppm. Stomata are tiny pores on leaves that take in CO2, and when plants die, they leave a record of past CO2 levels. More CO2 actually helps plants grow, using less water, which has led to a 7% increase in leaf area since 2000—a benefit of human influence. Ocean pH, often said to have dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 since 1800, can’t be proven either—we have no measurements from back then, and today’s pH varies from 7.8 to 8.3 depending on the region. Nature is resilient, and these changes aren’t necessarily harmful, but we need actual data, not models, to know the truth.

Conclusion

Climate science is distorted by institutional pressures and poor communication, not by dishonest scientists. Universities and funding bodies push certain narratives, while science writers exaggerate findings, and few scientists share their work directly with the public. This leaves room for figures like Al Gore to spread unproven claims under the banner of “science.” Climate change is mostly natural, with cycles and variations we can’t fully predict, and human influence—like higher CO2 levels—can even bring benefits, like more plant growth. We need transparent science, based on real data, not models, and better communication so the public can understand the facts and make informed decisions.

Share This Article

Bristol Blog banner featuring social issues and education critiques by Lewis Loflin.