Climate scientists & politics: Simpleton versus Wicked scientists

From Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

In which wicked scientists are the good guys.

Activism by climate scientists has been the topic of numerous prior blog posts at Climate Etc.  Such activism is generally focused on eliminating fossil fuels.  This post presents a new framing for the activism issue. While many scientists prefer to remain in the ivory tower, others desire to engage in the messiness of politics and policy making.  Why most scientists reject admonitions to “stay in their lane,” there are more and less useful ways for scientists to engage with politics.

Simpleton climate scientists

I’m defining ‘simpleton climate scientists’ to be academics, mostly in disciplines that are far afield from the core discipline of climate dynamics, who think that both the climate problem and its solutions are simple.  Their preferred modes of activism are twitter rants, demonstrations and increasingly civil disobedience.

The issue of simpleton scientists was brought to the forefront last week by a publication in Nature Climate Change entitled Civil disobedience by scientists helps press for urgent climate action.   The authors are faculty members in the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Cardiff:

  • Stuart Capstick, psychologist
  • Aaron Thierry, social scientist
  • Emily Cox, psychologist
  • Oscar Berglund, policy studies (U. of Bristol)
  • Steve Westlake, psychologist
  • Julia Steinberger, geography (U. of Lausanne)

The Nature article is behind paywall, but a Guardian article interviews the authors. It is clear that this is not just a scholarly article on civil disobedience.  The quote that really popped out for me was by Berglund:

“We have a kind of what we call epistemic authority here: people listen to what we are saying, as scientists, and it becomes a way of showing how serious the situation is, that we see ourselves forced to go to these lengths.”

Since when do psychologists have epistemic authority to speak on climate change, its impacts and relevant policies?

Inside Climate News  has another choice quote from the actual paper:

“Civil disobedience by scientists has the potential to cut through the myriad complexities and confusion surrounding the climate crisis.”

Ya think?  Is this all it takes?

Also cited in this article is a statement from Peter Kalmus:

Peter Kalmus, a climate scientist for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, agrees. In April, Kalmus was arrested for locking himself to the front door of a JPMorgan Chase bank branch and has since urged other scientists to join him in protest, saying it’s their duty as experts to convey the weight of their findings to the public and convince elected officials to take proper recourse.

“For the sake of our children, for the sake of the future of humanity,” Kalmus said, “you have a responsibility to do everything you can to get that information out there.”

Exactly how does civil disobedience get meaningful information out there? These scientists seem to be taking their cues from Michael Mann’s book for children entitled The Tantrum That Saved the World 


Kalmus told me that he’s “disappointed” that, so far, fewer scientists than he had hoped have joined in his call to action, but he sees Monday’s article as a positive sign and believes more researchers will join the movement—especially as extreme weather and other consequences of global warming accelerate in scope and severity.

Have any of these climate scientists actually read the IPCC AR6?

So why haven’t more climate scientists joined this call to action?  Maybe because they find this kind of behavior embarrassing and counterproductive.

More credible approaches to climate activism

Jim Hansen was probably the first high-profile climate activist.  Has anyone ever heard Hansen claim “epistemic authority” to speak publicly on climate change?  Of course not. Hansen doesn’t need to claim such authority – he has it.  Hansen has worked assiduously to communicate with public.  He has done the hard work to understand the economics and politics of carbon pricing and also nuclear power.  He has worked closely with policy makers, most famously with Al Gore.  Have some of his actions been over-the-top?  Yes.  Whether or not you agree with Hansen, it is undeniable that he has been effective in the political and policy arenas.  Hansen is now in his 80’s, it would be interesting for him to write an essay that reflects on his activism, what worked and what didn’t, any general or specific regrets, and recommendations for current activists.

An interesting essay on this topic was written recently by  Rick Pancost,  entitled Climate Scientist Activism. The entire essay is well worth reading, here are some quotes:

I am not sure what sort of activism will be most effective to bring about transformative change. I certainly cannot speak to where you will be most effective in your activism. Those who do have political influence – real influence – should recognise what a rare commodity that is; they should neither casually discard it nor should they waste it. The climate movement must be a thriving mosaic of approaches, with each leveraging the successes of the others to increase cultural, popular or political capital and drive a Just Transformation.

We must find what activism is most effective, is most genuine, for each of us – but be self-critical when doing so. Some of us DO need to engage governments, some of us must be IN government. But let us not be complicit in our own deception. After all, engaging politicians is difficult but activism is hard. You sacrifice more than your time, but also your reputation, job prospects, even your freedom. Sometimes the logical choice is the right choice; sometimes it is just the easy choice.

But you do have to make a choice. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. We cannot be the vizier to the king as well as the court jester. We cannot participate in civil disobedience and still serve on government advisory boards.

Activist scientists must also be humble and remember that we are not experts on what is effective. We did not know what would be effective when we allowed ourselves to be bound by others´ rules of engagement, when we allowed ourselves to be captured by governments and by extension the lobbyists and special interests who influence them. Because we are not experts on how policy is made, we were tricked. So perhaps rather than deciding who and how to engage, we should join those who do know.

Finally and most importantly, I would urge you to consider that maybe we should stop partnering with governments and start partnering with communities. “

Pangost’s essay reflects scientists attempting to work constructively with policy makers, planners and stakeholders, primarily on the issue of mitigation (reduction of CO2 emissions) and associated societal changes.  There are clearly frustrations, but this approach is far more effective than simpleton tantrums.

Wicked scientists

And finally we come to wicked scientists.   As I have written in multiple previous posts, a wicked problem is characterized by multiple problem definitions, contentious methods of understanding, chronic conditions of ignorance, and lack of capacity to imagine future eventualities of both the problem and the proposed solutions. The complex web of causality may result in surprising unintended consequences of attempted solutions that generate new vulnerabilities or exacerbate the original harm. Further, wickedness makes it difficult to identify points of irrefutable failure or success in either the science or the policies. Wicked problems are both complex and political.

Although much has been written about wicked problems and the need to address them, there is not much in the way of guidance for effectively tackling wicked problems.  Two recent articles have addressed this issue:

“Wicked science” is a process that is tailored to the dual scientific and political natures of wicked societal problems. As such, wicked science is massively transdisciplinary, including natural sciences and engineering along with social sciences and humanities. Wicked science uses approaches from complexity science and systems thinking in a context that engages with the political roles and perspectives of decision makers, planners and other stakeholders. Wicked problems and the strategies devised to address them cannot be defined by scientific experts alone, but include the experiential and operational knowledge of a range of stakeholders.

Two recent papers by atmospheric/climate scientists have articulated something similar to wicked science for the climate sciences, that notably focus more on adaptation than mitigation.

Adam Sobel’s paper “Usable climate science is adaptation science”  emphasizes that the localness of adaptation implies much greater uncertainty in the relevant climate science.  Climate science for adaptation is more about characterizing uncertainty for robust decision making. Usable climate science requires that scientists engage in co-production of usable science with stakeholders, with a willingness to learn to understand how the human factors are manifest in a particular setting.

Regina Rodrigues and Ted Shepherd’s paper entitled “Small is beautiful: climate-change science as if people mattered”  addresses strategies for grappling with the complexity of local situations. The strategies include expressing climate knowledge in conditional form in terms of scenarios developed via the storyline approach, and working with local communities to make sense of their own situations.

Combining and integrating knowledge from diverse disciplines and other sources to provide insights, explanations and solutions to wicked problems is a substantial challenge. For the solution orientation of wicked science to be meaningful, we need an overarching philosophy for navigating wicked problems. We need to acknowledge that control is limited, the future is unknown, and it is difficult to determine whether the impact you make will be positive. We need to accept that climate change will continue to disrupt natural systems and human wellbeing; this acknowledgement helps avoid the urgency trap. By acknowledging that there is no road back, we can focus on the road ahead.

Wicked scientists are willing to become embroiled in political debates and thorny social problems. As such, wicked scientists are not activists that are advocating for a preferred political/policy solution and recognize the reality of political disagreement as a key aspect for dealing with wicked problems.

Wicked scientists are needed to break the hegemony of disciplinary researchers, particularly those who are strident political activists, as being regarded as experts for solutions to the wicked problem of climate change. While the IPCC has operated via a loose cooperation between multiple disciplines, genuine transdisciplinary understanding and collaborations, across disciplines and with a broad range of stakeholders, is needed for meaningful contributions to wicked problems.

Some universities are starting to grapple with how to train wicked scientists.  Working in the private weather/climate services sector provides a crash course in being a wicked scientist, in terms of becoming conversant with additional disciplines, working in transdisciplinary teams, an emphasis on uncertainty, and actually listening to and working with policy makers, planners and stakeholders.  Not only is activism not needed for problem solving, but it mostly seems counterproductive to actually formulating and evaluating solutions.

The road ahead can be facilitated by broader, transdisciplinary thinking about the climate change problem and its solutions. This requires moving away from the consensus-enforcing and cancel culture approach of attempting to restrict the dialogue surrounding climate change and the policy options. We need to open up space for dissent, disagreement and discussion about scientific uncertainty and policy options, so that multiple perspectives can be considered and broader support can be built for a range of policy options.  Bring on the wicked scientists.

But if a scientist is dominated by their political instincts on this issue, they will continue to take the court jester path and not contribute to solutions in a meaningful way.

4.2 20 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rud Istvan
September 10, 2022 2:53 pm

As usual, Judith shoots and hits the bullseye 10 ring. A Treffer (German slang).

My favorite Harvard ‘simpleton’ is Naomi Oreskes, she of ‘Merchants of Doubt’ fame. Her PhD is in history of science. I doubt she will be writing the history of ‘climate science’ even tho she holds a second Harvard appointment in same, implying Harvard deems her a subject matter expert. Because that eventual history will show ‘CAGW climate science’ was as valid as the ‘phlogiston’ theory of combustion, or the ‘luminiferous aether’ theory of light propagation thru the vacuum of space.

Kuhn’s seminal 1962 book on the history of science, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, holds that a new scientific paradigm emerges from an accumulation of discrepancies from predictions of the previous false paradigm. For ‘climate science’ we have at a minimum the following accumulating discrepancies:

  1. Climate models predict a tropical troposphere hotspot that does not exist.
  2. Arctic summer sea ice did not disappear by ~2014.
  3. Sea level rise has not accelerated.
  4. RAPID buoy system shows AMOC has not slowed.
  5. UK children still know snow.

And, to add to Oreskes simpleton dilemma, some of her preferred solutions (renewables replacing fossil fuel generation) have now reached grid penetrations where their unavoidable limitations can no longer be ignored even by simpletons. Simpleton scientists apparently did not notice that the Sun does not always shine, the wind does not always blow, and there are NO grid scalable (even theoretically, let alone engineered practically) storage solutions to solve the inherent intermittency problem.

Or perhaps, being simpletons, they did not understand that the present grid paradigm is total reliability, which they have always comfortably experienced. And which Kuhn says would only change after an accumulation of discrepancies like multiple renewable causes grid failure blackouts. But that is not a new ‘reality paradigm’ that many would voluntarily accept.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Scissor
September 10, 2022 3:43 pm

Saw that. These morons think ruminants (dairy and beef cattle) cause climate change. They are very low on the simpleton scale. Methane is a GHG in the lab in an otherwise dry atmosphere. But not in our real water world planet with about 2% average atmospheric water vapor. The methane IR absorption bands are completely overlapped by and overwhelmed by water vapor IR absorption.
They want cows to be a problem worth vandalizing, then drain the oceans first. ‘Easy, just drill lots of holes in the ocean floor/s’

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 10, 2022 6:26 pm

Reduction of methane emissions was one of the few ‘accomplishments’ of COP26. I don’t expect it to be more than virtue signaling, with no measurable impact of any reductions accomplished. Yet, those same “simpletons” are now agitating to re-introduce beaver throughout the country. If they are successful, methane emissions should increase as new wetlands are created, negating any actual reductions from oil/gas wells or pipelines. These self-appointed environmentalists behave with all the focus and understanding of that old teenage ritual, a Chinese Fire-drill.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 11, 2022 12:37 am

Oh my, Clyde. We cant say THAT anymore. Maybe it would be ok to say MAGA fire drill or white guy fire drill.

Mark Whitney
Reply to  Rich Davis
September 11, 2022 6:11 am

Woke Fire-drill works for me!

George T
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 12, 2022 6:21 am

Your comments are always insightful and stimulate further deep thinking on a very complex subject. Simpleton are those who think CO2 is the control knob of our climate or those who query a range of scientists to arrive at the 97% consensus propaganda tool. Hence, the science is supposedly settled. Far from it.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Scissor
September 11, 2022 6:30 am

I believe these are the same people who claimed witches were the source of cold winters and drought in 1500-1600s, and then subsequently burned or drowned them to death.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 10, 2022 4:19 pm

the Sun does not always shine, the wind does not always blow

Has that determination been peer reviewed?

Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 10, 2022 10:20 pm

It’s only Rud’s (and my ) opinion after all…

Rich Davis
Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 11, 2022 1:37 am

But griff will tell you that the times when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine are entirely predictable so it’s not a problem. Say what?

He never explains what is going to fill the gap when a week-long period of overcast skies and low wind has been ever so accurately predicted, and his goal of net zero has been achieved.

He will explain that nuclear power is too expensive and takes too long to deploy. Hydropower, even in a 6% wetter UK might harm some fish or insect.

“Batteries” he will blurt out, asserting that their price is rapidly declining and on course to becoming affordable, nay, virtually free, any time now.

Unless we assume that griff truly is THAT dull, we should probably assume that he does understand that there will need to be frequent, widespread, long-duration power outages impacting most of the population. He just doesn’t feel compelled to acknowledge it.

I suppose that everyone will be forced to get a “smart” meter that they can program to “voluntarily” cut off their own power above a certain price, freezing or sweltering in the dark to appease Gaia. But they will be alerted on the phone hours ahead of time griff assures us, so that they can prepare meals in advance or something?

When you don’t volunteer to save the planet, you’ll be cut off involuntarily when you reach your quota of exorbitant power. Your quota of course will depend on your social score. Probably your pricing will also depend on your social score. Good communists like griff will be the last to be cut off from their subsidized power. MAGA types will only get power when there’s too much available and will still get charged outrageous rates for it.

The well-connected wealthy will have their personal battery backup systems and elite social score quotas and pricing, so that they are never impacted. The low social score caste, even if wealthy, won’t be allowed to buy a battery backup system.

Perhaps this is what griff means by “no problem” (for him)?

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Rich Davis
September 11, 2022 6:09 am

‘The well-connected wealthy will have their personal battery backup systems and elite social score quotas and pricing, so that they are never impacted.’

Even the ‘well-connected wealthy’ won’t have the means to survive what nature has in store for them absent the intricate web of production that capitalism has built that requires the efforts of all of us to maintain, including the unconnected non-wealthy.

Last edited 2 months ago by Frank from NoVA
Rich Davis
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
September 11, 2022 11:58 am

Of course I agree that free markets would keep the most people at the highest standard of living. But I am not so hopeful (if that’s the right word) as you are that the neo-fascists or communists coming after Brandon are going to be unable to hold things together for their elites.

I imagine that the plan is to control demand (through the mandatory smart meters) so that the grid stays up with what little dispatchable sources they have, maybe not much more than hydroelectric or if we’re lucky, a few nukes.

That way, there will always be some base load power available that needs to be used by someone. The elite of the elite will almost never have to rely on their batteries since with their social score they’ll be entitled to 24/7 supply.

A bit down the foodchain will be the ordinary elite who will need to rely on their batteries more frequently. But they’ll still be entitled to top up the battery whenever a brief surplus of power is available, so no real sacrifice. They will be able to afford the outrageous peak load pricing.

Below them are the wealthy but with average social scores. They will be able to buy one of the rationed battery systems and use it heavily with some planning to accept a lower standard of living for several significant periods each month but usually will have continuous although limited power. Only a minor inconvenience.

Below that, the middle classes will be forced into a situation that is probably no better off than the poor, since their pricing won’t be subsidized. Unable to afford a battery system in the first place, even if the scrimp and save, they will be rationed and most likely without an adequate social score, they won’t be able to get one for any price. Most of the lithium will be allocated to the electric cars for the elite and the public transportation cattle cars for the masses.

Most likely the pure clients of the socialist/fascist government will be subsidized at a level higher than the recalcitrant middle class kulaks can afford at their unsubsidized rates. All the better to discourage anybody from trying to live without the nanny state and to jump onto the social safety hammock in social solidarity. You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.

I’d bet that natural gas will still be used to ensure the elite base load. There will be numerous scam carbon trading options to allow elite cronies to supposedly offset the emissions.

All along we will hear about the latest breakthrough in fusion power. Just be a climate saint and save the planet through your virtuous sacrifices a bit longer until the day that Fusion comes in Glory. Yes it will probably be after you die, but do it for The Children. Well, no, not your biological offspring since only an elite 10% will be allowed to have a child. But for the Future great society we are building…

Last edited 2 months ago by Rich Davis
Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 11, 2022 2:42 am

Strictly speaking, you are correct, however, Rud was referring to the unreliable energy produced by wind and solar.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 10, 2022 4:58 pm

Unfortunately Kuhn did not consider the case where the paradigm is politicized to the point that failure becomes irrelevant. That is where the AGW paradigm is today.

Reply to  David Wojick
September 10, 2022 10:24 pm

I think we have reached a tipping point – Peak Lies.

Russia today is an example of what happens when you try to fool all of the people, all of the time.

The West should pay heed.

Reply to  David Wojick
September 11, 2022 3:44 am

We have the historical case of state science Lysenkoism, which caused dramatic food shortages in the USSR.

Mark Whitney
Reply to  Hans Erren
September 11, 2022 6:17 am

Followed most recently by Fauciism.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 10, 2022 5:00 pm

“My favorite Harvard ‘simpleton’ is Naomi Oreskes, “

Oreskes is not qualified to be a simpleton
She is a useful idiot.

Martin C
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 10, 2022 8:28 pm

Agree 100% with that . . .

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 10, 2022 8:54 pm

Yes. And not just any old useful idiot. A malicious useful idiot.

I think many excellent commenters on WUWT forget or ignore the amount of sheer malice the ‘simpletons’ exhibit.

Millions plunged into the dispair of extreme poverty and early death?

That is a feature of the plan. Not a bug.

September 10, 2022 10:25 pm

And not just any old useful idiot. A malicious useful idiot.

The very definition of a Marxist

Rich Davis
September 11, 2022 2:08 am

Billions of deaths must be the goal, not just millions. They talk of 500 million as a sustainable population. So 6.5 billion that need to go.

The only question is how fast they need to go. At best it means the forced sterilization of most of the population. Maybe 80% of women forced to be childless and the other 20% allowed one child. Of course quick and easy “voluntary” euthanasia when you get sick. Not so voluntary after a certain age. That’s the optimistic scenario.

Who knows how much worse it could be?

Last edited 2 months ago by Rich Davis
Matt Kiro
Reply to  Rich Davis
September 11, 2022 6:51 am

They have already started it.

Reply to  Rich Davis
September 11, 2022 11:02 pm

Trudeau is on that Euthanasia thing like a tick on a dog.

In Pushing Assisted Suicide On The Poor, Justin Trudeau Defines ‘Dignity’

Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 11, 2022 12:13 pm

Beauty is only skin deep but ugly goes clear to the bone.

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 10, 2022 6:06 pm

Kuhn, first nameThomas? Did he write a critique of the historical basis of the Bible myths?

Reply to  Barry Malcolm
September 10, 2022 10:33 pm

Don’t think so. he was (is) a philosopher of science who did as much harm as good, by pointing out that truth is relative to worldview, and therefore what was held true by scientists was a matter of consensus.

Without specifiying the qualitative difference between ‘theories, and things

IMO slightly too clever for his own good.

Reply to  Leo Smith
September 11, 2022 3:09 am

Kuhn never accounted for the enormous advances brought about by the introduction of new scientific instruments or techniques.

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 10, 2022 7:10 pm

Oreskes has an article, Operational Oceanography, in the March-April 2022 American Scientist which proved that she can do history. Had to do with the Cold War military interest, nearly all about Henry Stommel’s exceptional contribution to thermohaline circulation. The article was taken from her 2021 book (How Military Funding Shaped What We Do and Don’t Know about the Ocean). She did however end with us moving into a climate regime that has not existed in 100,000 years, somewhat contradicted by her coverage of the subject. Review of the book should be interesting. I recently had a conversation with someone working on this in the Sargasso Sea, hushed up at the time. It did employ a few oceanographers that went to sea back in those days.

As to “Wicked Science,” ain’t no such thing any more than there is the value judgement opposite. There is Wicked Management and Application.

September 10, 2022 3:04 pm

If you want to be taken seriously drop the silly term “wicked.”

Rud Istvan
Reply to  tgasloli
September 10, 2022 3:45 pm

Judith has written many posts on the notion of ‘wicked’ science. You should read them before commenting if you want to be taken seriously here.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 10, 2022 4:58 pm

I first heard the term “wicked problem” describing global warming back in 2007.

It was from an economist advisor to newly-minted Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd.

His name is Ross Garnaut.

He’s been on numerous committees etc since 2007.

Nothing achieved at all of course, but the gabfest continues unabated.

Reply to  Mr.
September 10, 2022 8:01 pm

Mind you, IIRC like Jim Hansen, Garnaut was a supporter of nuclear power generation being the ONLY rational way to obviate CO2 emissions from grid scale electricity generation.

Reply to  Mr.
September 11, 2022 11:06 pm

I think Hansen has done many bad and dishonorable things in his career but I have to give him credit now for panning ruinables and pushing nuclear.

* GODFATHER Of Global Warming Alarmism James Hansen Admits Renewable Energy Is A “Nice Idea” Though Useless


Former NASA climate commissar and eco-activist James Hansen admits what sceptics have been saying for years – renewable energy is useless.
“The hope that the wind and the sun and geothermal can provide all of our energy is a nice idea but I find it unlikely that that’s possible.”
“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  KcTaza
September 12, 2022 10:51 am

Hansen needs to tell Joe Biden he is living in a fantasy world.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 11, 2022 2:19 am

JC is of course taken seriously, and it’s reasonably serious to talk of wicked PROBLEMS. I suspect that tgasloli agrees with me that it is a silly attention-getting gimmick to refer to those who acknowledge that climate modeling is a wicked problem as wicked scientists.

Robert W Turner
September 10, 2022 3:24 pm

At least most of these types of people aren’t breeding.

Dave Fair
September 10, 2022 3:28 pm

Dr. Curry, I had high hopes for you. This throws a bucket of ice water on those hopes: As long as politicians dictate the narratives and provide all the funding your wicked scientists will not exist. And wealthy, ideologically motivated NGOs reinforce the narratives of the politically (ideological) driven.

You, of all people, should understand the politics of CliSciFi. Even when the bodies of UN IPCC reports contain reasonable analyses, the politicians jump in to pervert the report summaries and distort the messages generally sent out to the scientifically illiterate to engender fear and the desire to be led. Every political message (whether from governments or NGOs) is hysterical fear-mongering and any counter-message is suppressed with brute force.

I sometimes envision it as a marriage between President Eisenhour’s cautioning against government coopting science and H.L. Mencken’s: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Science is not consensus. What you describe above is more of a kumbaya exercise in bending science to the will of the collective. I do not trust any group of self-selected people to dictate fundamental changes to our society, economy and energy systems. You got that from me some time ago in reference to UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models and you used it (IIRC) in an address to a bunch of lawyers.

Your “Working in the private weather/climate services sector provides a crash course in being a wicked scientist, in terms of becoming conversant with additional disciplines, working in transdisciplinary teams, an emphasis on uncertainty, and actually listening to and working with policy makers, planners and stakeholders.” is an example of working in a free market environment to achieve common goals. It is not the big government, top-down command and control method of mass political operations. Raw political and financial power is the only thing that matters in CliSciFi now and in the foreseeable future. Think of the hold Nut Zero has on Western governments, institutions and the general public through unrelenting propaganda and the suppression of contrary scientific and economic views.

Sorry, but wicked scientists will have no place to work. You suffered through that and came out of it into the private sector. What do you think?

michael hart
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 10, 2022 6:00 pm

Seconded, Dave Fair.

Although I like Judith and many things she has said, there is one word that sums up the tone of this article. Appeasement.

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 10, 2022 6:16 pm

I’m not sure you were supporting Judith’s view or not?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Barry Malcolm
September 10, 2022 10:03 pm

Sarcasm, Barry?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 10, 2022 6:34 pm

Think of the hold Nut Zero has on Western governments, institutions and the general public through unrelenting propaganda and the suppression of contrary scientific and economic views.

One of the outcomes of Putin throttling the European gas supply is that Reality may rear its ugly head this Winter and drive home the point that virtue signaling is a luxury that only the well-off can afford. It is funny how thinking can change in people who are hungry or cold.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 11, 2022 11:10 pm

If the NWO has its way, people will be hungry and cold!

Chris Hanley
September 10, 2022 3:33 pm

“Problem” (19 matches) “solution” (12 matches) I’m lost for words and resort to Wiki: Mass psychogenic illness (MPI), also called mass sociogenic illness, mass psychogenic disorder, epidemic hysteria, or mass hysteria, involves the spread of illness symptoms through a population where there is no infectious agent responsible for contagion.

Last edited 2 months ago by Chris Hanley
September 10, 2022 3:54 pm

In 1989 (I believe it was) Jim Hansen testified in front of Congress (on the hottest day of the year with the AC disabled). In his testimony he predicted that Sea Level Rise would bring the waters above the Streets of Manhattan by 2017 if CO2 Emissions weren’t stopped.

That outrageously ridiculous prediction was off by about 30 feet, and sea level rise has maintained its 150 year steady and very linear rise (150 years of tide gage records)…as CO2 concentrations grew apace.

Where else in Science (or anywhere else) does anyone make such a horribly inaccurate prediction (he was serious…and under oath) and MAINTAIN ANY CREDIBILITY? Hansen should have been laughed out of the Profession.

Hansen has always been a lying activist/propagandist. His ridiculously wrong “Scientific” predictions have not tarnished his good standing amongst the so-called Climate Experts.

All of “Science” lets these claims “slide”. That reveals how all of Science has been politicized and corrupted.

All of our Institutions have been similarly corrupted…by the same people.

September 10, 2022 4:11 pm

Where else in Science (or anywhere else) does anyone make such a horribly inaccurate prediction (he was serious…and under oath) and MAINTAIN ANY CREDIBILITY? 

Paul Ehrlich

Reply to  MarkW
September 10, 2022 9:01 pm


And Ehrlich is lionised to this day.

September 10, 2022 4:55 pm

I believe they opened the windows so the air conditioning was not effective. Made Congresspeople sweat for a change. Hansen also made three climate predictions based on three scenarios. One prediction was in the ballpark and so was one scenario, but not the one for that prediction. Three guesses makes predicting easier.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 10, 2022 6:42 pm

The only prediction that “was in the ballpark” was the result of assuming a couple of major volcanic eruptions that didn’t happen.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 10, 2022 8:23 pm

One prediction of three was in the bal[park and one scenario of three was in the ballpark. I said the better scenario did not match the better prediction. I can predict the future climate with three guesses too — warmer or no change or cooler — three predictions is more than enough to get one in the ballpark.

Clyde Spencer
September 10, 2022 6:39 pm

One can see something similar in the continuing support for Biden, despite many problems directly of his creating, some a result of his religious belief in AGW. Most supporters are in denial about Biden’s poor performance, or his responsibility for the things that have happened under his watch.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 11, 2022 6:59 am

It’s not just denial. Most of his supporters see the problem first hand in the price of everything they buy. But all the news sources they pay attention to , never mention why they are happening, and they certainly never show any of his or Kamala’s rambling speeches . Just those videos alone would make one question who they voted for.

Doc Chuck
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 11, 2022 10:24 pm

Clyde, you’re apparently taking for granted an atmosphere of free thought guided by the needed effort for deeper inquiry. There’s no mystery in any breadth of support from a sustained ignorance of the pertinent facts, a willingness to jump on any bandwagon populated by encouraging confreres, an anticipated substantial remunerative boon with little aversion to its accompanying moral corruption, the threatened de-platformed silencing of every contrary voice as well as personal villification of every such ‘unmutual’ outsider; all in the context of prevailing personal cowardice.

Joe e
September 11, 2022 6:08 am

Where do I start?

September 11, 2022 11:14 pm

If it’s any comfort to you,Larry, Hansen is doing penance for his sins. He’s very much on the outs with the climate nutter crowd since he came out against ruinables and for nuclear.

* GODFATHER Of Global Warming Alarmism James Hansen Admits Renewable Energy Is A “Nice Idea” Though Useless

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

Zig Zag Wanderer
September 10, 2022 4:01 pm

Their preferred modes of activism are twitter rants, demonstrations and increasingly civil disobedience.

In my experience their disobedience is becoming increasingly uncivil, not civil.

September 10, 2022 4:49 pm

The simpleton scientists know what to say to get government jobs and grants.
It’s simple — CO2 is evil — but that’s what is required.
Go along with the consensus to get along
It’s politics, not science.

Governments get the science they pay for.
They want predictions of doom
They pay for predictions of doom
They get predictions of doom
No one loses a job for wrong predictions of doom
They could get a promotion for an effective prediction of doom that gets lots of media coverage. Lesson learned: Never buy a used car from a scientist.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 10, 2022 6:44 pm

Never buy a used car from a scientist an activist.

September 10, 2022 4:55 pm

Putin has been far more effective in restoring reality to the climate debate than Trump.

It is now apparent that Germany has wasted tremendous resources on weather dependent generators. Their reliance on a single dictator for their energy needs is now leading them to a catastrophic winter.

What few in the developed world actually appreciate is the total reliance on China for the imagined future of perfect weather by using stuff made in China to extract energy directly from the wind and sun. Consuming more energy in the making than that stuff produces in its lifetime – it is an illusion made possible by the lack of manufacturing knowledge in developed countries.

China makes it look feasible by consuming vast quantities of natural resources relatively efficiently to make the useless stuff the developed world craves.

If you need more wind turbines – call China.
If you need more solar panels – call China.
If you need more batteries – call China.
If you need more electronics to put the system together – call China.
If you need transmission lines to get power from remote locates to point of use – call China.

China has taken over global manufacturing in the first two decades of this century. By the end of the third decade, they will dominate all areas of industrial production as the developed counties close down their industrial capability.

It does not surprise me that psychologist are running the debate in developed countries. Science and engineering are no longer relevant in developed countries. Just call China if you want something manufactured.

Climate science is, above all, propaganda. It is unrelated to physical reality. In that field psychologists will always control the agenda.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  RickWill
September 11, 2022 7:02 am

And of course is buying off politicians all over the world, whether indirectly or through their loans.

September 10, 2022 4:55 pm

Unfortunately this analysis assumes there is a climate problem in need of solutions. In reality the supposed solutions are the problem.

Dave Fair
Reply to  David Wojick
September 10, 2022 10:57 pm

Yeah, David. I would be very interested in what Dr. Curry exactly thinks are the disrupted natural systems and negative human impacts referred to in her statement: “We need to accept that climate change will continue to disrupt natural systems and human wellbeing

It is the proven-to-be-unfit UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models driven by outlandish predictions of CO2 production, in both hindcasts and forecasts, that feed into professional speculators’ reports of ecosystem doom and gloom that are so profitable for academics, politicians, Leftist bureaucrats, NGOs and crony capitalists. Mark Twain said it all: “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

All scientifically valid studies show that, other than minor global warming, wetting and greening, there have been no worsening climate metrics for 100+ years. The verified data shows there have been no increases in the frequency, intensity and duration of adverse weather events.

Last edited 2 months ago by Charlie Skeptic
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 12, 2022 11:12 am

Curry: “We need to accept that climate change will continue to disrupt natural systems and human wellbeing”

That is assuming too much. There is no evidence human-caused climate change is causing any disrutption to natural systems or human wellbeing. That is an unsubstantiated assumption.

Evidence is one thing. Assumptions are another. It’s easy to tell the difference between the two.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 12, 2022 10:13 pm

Tom, that’s why I was so disappointed in Dr. Curry’s latest posting; she is normally much more discerning. Only she can know if this is to placate her big business clients.

Frank from NoVA
September 10, 2022 4:55 pm

It’s pretty clear what’s going on – we now have a fully fledged 4th branch of government, aka, the ‘Deep State’, composed of employees that are answerable to no one – they have neither been directly elected nor have they been appointed and confirmed by anyone subject to the electoral process. And in accordance with what ‘public choice theory’ or even common sense would suggest, these employees will always gravitate towards and actively support the party that most favors government expansion, i.e., the Democrats. From my viewpoint, the 2022 and 2024 elections will determine whether the ‘Deep State’ can be reformed or if we can just say ‘sayonara’ to constitutional government.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
September 11, 2022 2:54 am

Sayonara, auf wiedersehen, arrivederci, au revoir, 再见, and buh bye!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rich Davis
September 12, 2022 10:16 pm

Rich, it looks like our masters are saying “adios, Mthfkr!”

September 10, 2022 4:58 pm

In 1997 after my first hour reading about climate science, I made my irst and only climate prediction: “The climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder”.
That summarized what I learned in the first hour of study. I never imagined scientists would claim that was wrong — that climate can only get warmer, as if climate history — warming and cooling trends — had never happened,

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
Smart Rock
September 10, 2022 5:36 pm

“Wicked science” is a process that is tailored to the dual scientific and political natures of wicked societal problems. As such, wicked science is massively transdisciplinary, including natural sciences and engineering along with social sciences and humanities. Wicked science uses approaches from complexity science and systems thinking in a context that engages with the political roles and perspectives of decision makers, planners and other stakeholders. Wicked problems and the strategies devised to address them cannot be defined by scientific experts alone, but include the experiential and operational knowledge of a range of stakeholders

This is very much what it’s like working in mining or petroleum exploration/development in today’s hyper-politicized environment. We tend to call it “doing our job”.

Barry Malcolm
September 10, 2022 6:02 pm

Judith is a rational, thoughtful, measured breath of fresh air! Gotta love her observations!

September 10, 2022 7:39 pm

I do not support Judith’s view and the label “wicked science and wicked scientist” is not helpful. Judith seems embarrassed by some activism while endorsing other activism. I have a different view, if catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is a true demon then show us. My view is that there has been precious little proper scientific evidence presented to prop up this claim. There is no shortage of anecdotal evidence and climate models but that is about it. Any problem that is as dangerous and serious as we are led to believe CAGW is should be provable with valid science and most important be reproducible. If you can’t do that you don’t know what you are talking about and you offer little more than opinion. Demonstrations and other like forms of activism are not science, if you feel the need to resort to this kind of tactic that tells me you don’t truly believe what you profess. It has no place in a matter as serious as you claim. Do your homework, show your work and prove your case. The other stuff is really embarrassing to legitimate scientific endeavors.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bob
September 10, 2022 11:07 pm

Scientists attempting to play games with politicians and “stakeholders” will become assets to be deployed by the powerful. That’s where the money and power comes from; active scientists are simply tools used in larger games. I’ve seen this because I have been on both sides. Politics and social causes corrupt science.

Reply to  Dave Fair
September 11, 2022 4:57 pm

I think you’re right.

Old Man Winter
September 10, 2022 8:29 pm

Note: I have divided this into two comments to avoid a possible
delay due to approval.

Deniers/deplorables think of libs as being people with bad ideas.
In that situation, it’s logical to debate them by presenting facts
to verbally win the argument. The “classical” liberals also view
things as we do but unfortunately, they have been overrun by the
radical liberals who believe we are bad people with bad ideas &
must, at minimum, be stopped at all costs so we don’t harm
humanity. These radicals also believe they are justified in
destroying us if everything else they tried has failed.

For us, we can only defend ourselves & must never be aggressive
& assault them verbally (name calling) or physically if we
haven’t been attacked first. If we do, we violate our own
principles & have already lost the debate. That’s why we call
out & disassociate ourselves from any “loose cannons” who
violate these rules.

For radicals, the moral judgement of us being bad people removes
the self-defense restraint & so both verbal & physical aggression
is justifiable. In fact, it’s not just a viable option, it’s also
included in their plans to defeat opponents, as Saul Alinsky’s
“Rules for Radicals” were designed to gain total power & implement
dictatorial socialism. This explains why they resort to aggression
& terrorism, like the XR rebellion. Since they’ve made a moral
judgement, they are now in the realm of religious faith, not
rational logic. As such, they can devolve into a pure cult, where
logic is useless.

Since aggression is never an option for us, we leave the authorities
to deal with radical aggression. When personally attacked, then we
abide by the legal rules of self-defense, whatever those may be in
our locality. No aggression, PERIOD!

So what are our limitations for the verbal option we still have in
our tool box? Climategate revealed that we were already being
verbally assaulted, a case of malfeasance, not misfeasance.
Misfeasance would be a case of not showing your opponent the
weaknesses of your own arguments. Malfeasance is lying & cheating
by suggesting ways to change data to support your position or using
“tricks” to “Hide the Decline”. Using dirty tactics to keep
papers from being published, to avoid FOIA requests, & to not
release data underlying your own papers were other deeds that
were malfeasant. These should have been dealt with at an
administrative level but unfortunately, the administrations
were already corrupted, too.

We have also been attacked with name calling, hence the label
“denier”. Also, radicals have claimed everything we say is evil
& violent- racist, misogynistic, _____phobic, …- a tactic used
to censor & criminalize us & to rally support for them in their
cause against their “evil” foe. Essentially, they are doing a
full-frontal attack & unfortunately, I don’t see any “classical”
liberals risking their necks to call them out & disassociate
themselves from them. Even Bill Maher only called out that the
hypocrisy of climate activists was ruining their credibility,
not that their actions were wrong.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Old Man Winter
September 10, 2022 8:40 pm

Part Two (cont’d)

In a debate/rebuttal, you always present facts & arguments
as one normally does in this situation. Since name calling
is an easy- & cheesy- tactic to attach an undesirable label
to an opponent & to put them in the position of having
to prove a negative- a logical impossibility. Therefore, it
should never be used. A better alternative is to question
why facts you both agree upon, like C3 plants dying @ 150ppm,
C3 plants growing better @ higher CO2 levels, …, are never
been mentioned by you as all important data is needed to make
wise policy decisions. (If they tell you they forgot, then
ask them if they will make it a major goal to always include
them in the future.) This is holding them to the same
standard they hold us to as we always must admit that CO2 is
a GHG & temperatures have risen in the past 170+ yrs.

In debates/rebuttals, instead of taking a defensive posture,
it may be helpful to go on offense by using facts & data
points to present higher CO2 levels & warmer temperatures
as being something to be welcomed, not feared. That puts
them on the defensive as to showing that you are wrong,
a position that’s harder to defend.

I included Alinsky’s rules as we are in a political battle
& much of that is basically PSY OPS 101- much closer to
sales & marketing than nerdy science. I’m quite certain
that effective ways to counter each of these tactics
already exist & those methods need to be incorporated
into how we present our case both professionally & to
the public, to at least counter those rules & at times,
go on offense. This is one arena where getting
professional help would be a good use of resources.

Lastly, we always have legal & political means to help
our position- FOIAs, law suits, & legislation, to name
a few of those ways. If necessary, we also can protest &
rally, staying within the laws governing those activities.

In summary, we do have valid points that must be heard &
must force the opposition into giving us a chance for an
honest debate. It’s not that we know it all, but that we’re
allowed input into public policy, which is our right as
citizens in a democracy. The key to all of our words &
actions must always stay within the bounds of our own
ethical standards otherwise we’ll have lost before we
have begun.

Reply to  Old Man Winter
September 10, 2022 10:39 pm

Classical liberals = libertarians.
Today ‘Liberal’ just means ‘Marxist in priest’s clothing’
As today ‘Gay’ means miserable homosexual who wants the benefits of being straight, as well.:-)

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 10, 2022 11:29 pm

Thanks, Leo. Instead of classical liberal, I think traditional liberal- or
at least how they represented themselves 60 yrs ago- is a better
descriptive of what I meant. As for _______phobic, that includes
all the different groups us deniers/deplorables supposedly hate &
fear. Misogynistic includes the oppressive patriarchal structure, too.
(BTW, I learn more here by accident than I do elsewhere by design.)
Thanks again!

Reply to  Leo Smith
September 11, 2022 11:58 am

Libertarians want less government spending / mandates and more personal freedom. Classical liberals only want more personal freedom.

They were against the government ONLY to protest the Vietnam War.
I was a Democrat in 1972, when I burned my draft card on the sidewalk in front of my Selective Service office.

When the war ended in 1973, liberals were no longer against the government, just against a Republican as president. I became a libertarian in 1973 and voted libertarian from 1974 until 2020. Had to vote for Trump in 2020, because Biden was far left, not all there, and a crook — three strikes! 2020 was my first vote for a Republican since 1972 — in 48 years.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 11, 2022 2:05 pm

“Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch
of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire
economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with especial
emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech.”

After Leo commented, I looked up “classical liberal” & this is
how it was defined. That’s how I would’ve described a
libertarian. What you described as liberals post 1973 was
what I thought classical liberals were. Maybe the best term
for that group is “non-woke liberal”, someone who hasn’t
gone full stupid yet & there’s a chance you can
have a rational discussion.

Last edited 2 months ago by Old Man Winter
Gary Pearse
September 10, 2022 10:23 pm

Somehow, between the wicked and the simpleton climate scientists, Judith Curry was and still is convinced that there is a climate problem out there that needs or will need fixing!¿

“Whether or not you agree with Hansen, it is undeniable that he has been effective in the political and policy arenas. Hansen is now in his 80’s, it would be interesting for him to write an essay that reflects on his activism, what worked and what didn’t, any general or specific regrets, and recommendations for current activists.”

A better essay for Hansen would be a walking back of the alarm. I can’t find it in the egregiously activist internet ‘edited search’ engines, but about 2017 he was quoted as saying that we may be going into a 30 yr cooling period! He seems to have fallen silent since. Gavin Schmidt last year, probably took his cue and stated that climate models were running away too hot (something he actually knew for a decade since forecasts from 1990 proved to be 300% overestimated).

Oh and Hansen opined in 1988 that the Westside Highway would be underwater by 2000. He then said he meant by 2020. Nope, the deck is still 10ft above the water and will still be 9.5ft above the water in 2120! C’mon Judy, it’s all window dressing for a néomarxist putsch by the WEF elites. They have even come clean about the “Great Reset”.

Mike Dubrasich
September 10, 2022 10:40 pm

We need to accept that climate change will continue to disrupt natural systems and human wellbeing…

No, not true. The “climate” is always changing, has always changed. and will continue to change. Yet natural systems and humanity have forged ahead regardless. “Disruption” is a meaningless buzz.

There is no, none, zero, nothing humans can do to halt climate change. Please give the crisis alarmism a rest.

But, but, but we need to adapt! Since when have humans, or nature, stopped adapting? It could be that your “adaptations” that you wish to impose on the rest of us are serious mal-adaptations. Societal and economic collapse inflicted by authoritarians are examples of the unintended (or intended) consequences of such psychosis.

Lighten up. Get a new hobby. Climate “science” is a crock. The krazies are chomping at the bit for any excuse to commit crimes. Jail time is the best solution to “activism”.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
September 11, 2022 7:17 am

Ok one quick comment. Those of you who are saying “there is no climate change” are falling in the IPCC’s trap. Climate change ≠ HUMAN CAUSED climate change; human causes contribute to climate change, but an unknown fraction. Climate varies and changes all the time, and changes the envelope of extreme weather events, which people need to deal with in some way, either recovering from or adapting to. Wicked scientists bring knowledge of weather and climate to bear on helping communities, companies, governments deal with the problems of extreme weather events and climate variability/change.

Dave Fair
Reply to  curryja
September 11, 2022 1:25 pm

Dr. Curry, the statistical properties (climate) of extreme weather events (frequency, intensity and duration) have not changed appreciably since relatively accurate recordkeeping began over 100 years ago. The extreme weather events we experience today are indistinguishable from yesterday’s.

Any competent meteorologist can “… bring knowledge of weather and climate to bear on helping communities, companies, governments deal with the problems of extreme weather events …” [It is my understanding (?) your company provides such services.] It has been commented that we don’t even plan for past adverse weather events, much less today’s.

And since there have been no measurable adverse “climate variability/change,” what value can CliSciFi practitioners’ speculations bring to the table? Its akin to having astrologers join your planning team. Even UN IPCC CliSciFi climate modelers admit their models cannot predict future climates and run way too hot.

September 10, 2022 11:32 pm

People will always find justification for going in the direction they already have started going.
In the end, what matters (to your grandchildren, if you have any) is not words, arguments, or worldviews, it is outcomes.

My conviction is that the Western world has reached the tipping point of Peak Lies. We have been so bombarded by fake this propaganda that, that people are miserable, sucidal, confused and have no idea what sex they are or how they should behave. It is the most puritanical and repressed society in history. And all done without God, too. Imagine that!

So, setting aside all the nonsense in our heads – what we might call the wicked science of marketing and propaganda overload – what is the outcome?

Well, apart from how prudish and miserable the millenials are, we have pretty much ruined the technological infrastructure that keeps us alive, as we gaily followed the Pied Piper of Climategate, over the Walrus strewn cliffs of accumulated bullshit.

BUT as others have pointed out, a salient fact is that the human mind tends to have evolved to concentrate on the most urgent worry confronting it to the exclusion of more vague threats., You do not ponder the intricacies of climate change or whether a man can have a vagina when you are rotating with no grip on a road covered in black ice. Sort the skid out first says the animal brain.

The propagandists have killed the goose. In their struggle to create more narratives that would give them the larger share of the wealth produced by a post industrial post modern civilisation whose operation they entirely failed to understand, they have destroyed that civilisation’s ability to create the wealth and security they so craved.

And in doing so, aided and abetted by the two biggest global liars in the world (yes even worse than a US politician) they have created a genuine crisis – two genuine crises – a pandemic, and a fossil fuel supply side shock combined with the sort of war everyone got bored with 80 years ago. Thank you Putin, thank you Xi Ping. For ‘woke’ing us up from our woke fantasies of ‘social justice’ and ‘ecological guilt’, to the more urgent reality of the existential survival of the so called free world.

And the practical problem of staying warm this winter and having food on the table next year.

Somewhere there is an old chinese proverb about the best way to combat the bad being to make energetic progress in pursuit of the good.

I suspect the faux exigences of climate change will simply fade from view as the real exigencies of satisfying the democratic insistence of a population you have deprived of heat, light, food and power, and above all, hope, lead to a sea change in the political narrative away from existential naval gazing moral narratives, towards simple conservative and pragmatic ones, that start to undo the damege dine by elite greed cloaked in moral virtue signalling.

In short, much as I genuinely admire Judith Curry, I think events are about to overtake her…Trump was a sort of green shoot, but got stamped out. There will be others. People will not stop until they are satisfied that the world is, if not in safe hands, at least removed from the hands of dangerous psychopathic lunatics.

I note people have mentioned Kuhn: Well the notion of a paradigm shift, a sea change, is as appropriate to social mores as it is to scientific revolutions.
I prophesy a turning away from the notion that a government is there to provide you with a walled kindergarten, a safe space where all you have to do is follow the rules and believe what you are told to have a safe happy and long life.

And a return to a more realistic notion, that in reality the most important thing a government can do is stop your town from resembling Ukraine. Or indeed Islamabad. And given the need that national infrastructure is probably something everyone genuinely needs, get on and make that work, and leave out the business of, as Elzabeth I is reputed to have said, the business of ‘peering into men’s souls’ as probably ultra vires even for the priest hood. And come to understand, that to tax people to pay other people to make the first set of peple’s lives miserable with pettifogging rules and regulations, thought crimes and hate speech, does not, as the Americans say, butter any parsnips.

In short the socialist narrative, which is all about the distribution pattern of the national GDP and the creation of meaningless jobs, has simply reduced the national GDP!

It needs scrapping. It was a museum piece by the 1920s. Now a hundred years later its so past its sell by date that you can see the bacteria crawling all over it.

Peak lies. Time for some sanity and some truth. The truth may be a social construct, Mr Kuhn, but its not constructed out of thin air. There is a reality behind it, or we would all be magicians, able to conjure any truth merely by wishing it.

Peta of Newark
September 11, 2022 1:18 am

And The Simplest Fail of them all – the very root of what’s wrong with Climate Science?
Of course it’s perfectly understandable. It appears that everybody on the World (we are talking 99.999%+) make the same mistake.

The fail is that, although weather & climate appear to come down from out of the sky, they are not ‘created’ there

Weather and Climate are created by what is under out feet.
Whether standing outside in a park/garden/field garden or, as we are now, having raving good time in a bar-room brawl aboard a Titanic.

But as is the way with really really simple things (of all sorts incl. sentient ones) – they are the hardest things to fix or understand should something real or imagined go wrong,

September 11, 2022 4:34 am

Does Judith really think there is a solution to climate change?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nelson
September 12, 2022 11:25 am

Does Judith really think human-derived CO2 is causing detectable changes in the Earth’s weather?

September 11, 2022 5:56 am

I’ll defer to Jeremy Clarkson-

Twitter is a handy and constant reminder that socialists are disgusting people.

Mark Whitney
September 11, 2022 6:18 am

Ahh, for the good old days when jesters bore their stripes for impudence.

Matt Kiro
September 11, 2022 6:28 am

In one recent study, I believe talking with your local bartender at the bar have the same rate of success as going to a psychologist. Basically both had a 50% rate of improving the person’s situation/problem. Not exactly a good average for a ‘scientist’.

September 11, 2022 6:54 am

Ironically I tried to get a copy of Sobel’s paper.
but it’s paywalled. Yes, science should determine policy, so they say, but if you’re not affiliated with a paying institution, you can’t read it. You can’t even access papers saying that people need to be more involved in co-production of science.
Open access to science is a key justice concern IMHO.

September 11, 2022 10:28 am

Back in the mid ’70’s I was part of a multi disciplinary team writing Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) for a locational analysis office working for a DOT. I was the transportation engineer, there were 2 wildlife biologists and a sociologist. At that time there hadn’t been many EIS done, so we had to figure it out as we went along. I learned a lot working with all of them.

One of the major things we learned was how interconnected and resilient the various systems were. It didn’t mater if it was a neighborhood bisected by a highway or an isolated glade next to an express train line. After varying amounts of time, things resettled and a new equilibrium was reached, sometimes with entirely unexpected and non-intuitive relationships.

Kevin McNeill
September 11, 2022 10:39 am

Ms Curry’s understanding of the word wicked is much different than my own. To my mind Michael Mann is wicked in the sense of minor evil doer.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Kevin McNeill
September 12, 2022 11:43 am

A Major Evil Doer.

Mann’s lies and those of his cronies have caused people to believe we are living in the hottest times in human history and he blames this on CO2. This distortion of reality has caused politicians to start the process of bankrupting their nations in a futile effort to reduce a fake CO2 warming trend. His lies may lead to a lot of misery in Europe this winter and their electrical grids struggle to keep up with demand. It didn’t have to happen, but Mann’s temperature lies were a call to action for the politicians and the environmentalists.

First of all, we are *not* living in the hottest times in human history, it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century, and second of all, there is no evidence CO2 is causing anything other than minor, undetectable warming.

Temperature Data Manipulators are the cause of our current energy disaster. Their lies have misled the world into taking drastic action which will destroy Western democracies if allowed to continue.

Mann is not the only one. He has plenty of company in manipulating the temperature record, right up to the present day.

Mann and all the other data liars should be sued for damages.

September 11, 2022 7:37 pm

Since when were psychologists scientists?

September 11, 2022 11:15 pm

“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future”
 Yogi Berra

%d bloggers like this: