Strong academic objections to unopposed election for National Academies president

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The president of the National Association of Scholars has written a scathing letter to the National Academy of Sciences condemning the unopposed candidacy of Dr. Marcia K. McNutt, the present editor-in-chief of the journal Science, as president of the Academy.

Their complaint has to do with her policy at Science of censoring any dissenting opinions on a number of science subjects, including climate change.

Science [the journal] promotes the so-called consensus model of climate change and excludes any contrary views.  This issue has become so polarized and polarizing that it is difficult to bring up, but at some point the scientific community will have to reckon with the dramatic discrepancies between current climate models and substantial parts of the empirical record.  Recent evidence of Science bias on this issue is the June 26, 2015 article by Dr. Thomas R. Karl, “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus”; the July 3, 2015 McNutt editorial, “The beyond-two-degree inferno”; the November 13, 2015 McNutt editorial, “Climate warning, 50 years later”; and the November 25, 2015 AAAS News Release, “AAAS Leads Coalition to Protest Climate Science Inquiry.”

Dr. McNutt’s position is, of course, consistent with the official position of the AAAS. But the attempt to declare that the “pause” in global warming was an illusion has not been accepted by several respected and well-informed scientists. One would not know this, however, from reading Science, which has declined to publish any dissenting views.  One can be a strong supporter of the consensus model and yet be disturbed by the role which Science has played in this controversy.  Dr. McNutt and the journal have acted more like partisan activists than like responsible stewards of scientific standards confronted with contentious claims and ambiguous evidence.  The relevant documents and commentary regarding the Karl paper and McNutt editorials can be examined at [emphasis mine]

The letter outlines two other areas where McNutt has appeared to play favorites in areas of scientific controversy, and thus questions the wisdom of allowing her to run unopposed for presidency of the National Academy of Sciences.

What is important about this letter is that indicates that there is an increasing pushback from scientists against the demands of orthodoxy. Rather than going along with the powers-that-be, the National Association of Scholars is stating its increasing distrust of the scientific integrity of those powers.

Posted from Sedona, Arizona.



  • Cotour

    Barak O grew up eating Marxism, communism and radical doctrine and immersed in Islam, and sat in front of the rev for 20 years and apparently did not hear anything he said. Bernie Sanders, a self avowed “democrat socialist” (read communist) honey mooned in communist Moscow (when it was the soviet union), Bill De blasio honey mooned in Cuba (communist) and “worked” with the Sandanistas (Marxist), get the theme? This is who and what they are.

    These are the anti American, ideological radical children and as adults they now find themselves in power and they are making the best of what they have got while they have got it. And in this world that they find themselves in charge of their opinion is much more important than any fact that any science based discipline can objectively outline. It is imperative that they “correct” what must be corrected before their window on power closes. At any cost. ANY COST.

    Its a simple observation of fact, but a simple observation with extreme consequences for all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *