There is a canard making the rounds that climate science has become too politicized. Unwittingly or not, this rhetoric functions as a Trojan horse leading to political disarray and policy inaction in the face of the extremely serious risks associated with climate change.
A significant reason for this is the focused passion for critiquing climate science among many scholars working in STS (Science and Technology Studies) coupled with a lack of a corresponding critique of that “cultural group” most opposed to climate scientists – economic scientists. This is sometimes compounded by an embrace of their methods and metrics.
Consider this article as a Trojan Horse:
…political progress on climate change requires not more scientific input into politics, but less. Value disputes that are hidden behind the scientific claims and counterclaims need to be flushed out and brought into the sunlight of democratic deliberation.
And this as well:
…breaking down, rather than reinforcing differences across cultural groups would this seem key to broader acceptance of certain scientific findings.
And here is a Greek warrior emerging to slaughter the climate policy process:
I’ll leave it for others to decide whether the lunacy is that Schmitt is an astronaut who has walked on the moon and holds a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard yet interprets NASA data as he does or that he now serves as the Secretary of Energy for the Republican governor of the state of New Mexico. Of course he is here giving a talk at the Heartland Institute.
A truly synoptic analysis of the post-normal situation of climate science would openly critique and debate the values and practices (ie. the culture) of economists, policy institutes, and corporate contractors – not only those of climatologists and the IPCC. And that’s all we’re getting right now.