It’s time we asked an important question: who needs cold, unfeeling objectivity when you’re saving the world from a climate apocalypse? Apparently not climate scientists, according to the recently published article in Nature Climate Change by Schipper, Maharaj, and Pecl. This manifesto—masquerading as a scientific commentary—argues that emotions, anxieties, and grievances belong in the laboratory, right next to the Bunsen burners and climate models. Because, why not?
The piece begins with a bold premise: “The dominant paradigm holding that science is always objective needs to be challenged.” And challenged it is! Objectivity, the bedrock of scientific inquiry, is brushed aside as an oppressive relic of a bygone era. Why? Because, they claim, suppressing emotions weakens climate science. How, exactly? They don’t explain that, but their assertions are thick with the aroma of self-righteous victimhood.
A Sob Story in a Lab Coat
The authors tell us that climate scientists are just regular folks, cycling between despair and hope, burdened by their special “curse of foresight.” Apparently, only these enlightened individuals can see the inevitable doom awaiting us, making their despair not just understandable but noble. And if the rest of us dare question their emotional outbursts or point out their activist leanings? That’s just more proof of how society marginalizes their feelings.
They even invoke the specter of “Climategate,” the 2009 scandal that revealed dubious practices within the climate research community. Rather than reflect on why public trust eroded after those revelations, the authors bemoan how unfair it was for scientists to face scrutiny. Being held accountable? How dare anyone suggest that transparency matters more than their fragile egos!
When Victimhood Becomes Virtue
Of course, this isn’t just about emotions. No modern narrative is complete without the obligatory nod to systemic oppression. The article laments the lack of equity, inclusion, and diversity in climate science, pointing fingers at dominant “Global North male voices.” Apparently, marginalized groups within the field don’t just need a seat at the table; they also need their “perspectives and worries” amplified because their emotional experiences are inherently more valuable than mere data.
The authors don’t stop at demanding emotional inclusion—they want a full-on reimagining of how science operates. “Science requires emotion too,” they declare, as though this is some groundbreaking revelation rather than the kind of sentiment you’d find on a motivational poster. But they’re not just talking about letting scientists feel feelings. They argue that emotions should influence research directions and communication strategies. If you’re skeptical, that’s because you’re stuck in the “reductionist, positivist” mindset they’re trying to dismantle.
Science or Therapy Session?
The article makes an impassioned plea for “safe spaces” where scientists can express their anxiety, grief, and burnout. It’s hard not to chuckle at the idea of converting research institutions into group therapy centers. What’s next? Emotional support animals at IPCC conferences?
There is a need for a safe space to share feelings of anxiety, grief and burnout among climate scientists11. It is likely that most scientists do not currently recognize how much they might need such an outlet. Let’s get started by talking to each other and acknowledging that science requires emotion too.
More hilariously, the authors suggest that feelings of despair can actually enhance scientific inquiry. They point to polar bear population declines and heatwave fatalities as issues that should inspire distress, conveniently ignoring that sensationalizing these topics often leads to public disengagement. Why? Because no one wants to be lectured by Chicken Little in a lab coat.
Dividing the Faithful: Doomists vs. Hopeists
In what can only be described as a theological schism, the authors acknowledge a divide among climate scientists between “doomists” and “hopeists.” Doomists are charged with spreading apocalyptic fear, while hopeists preach the gospel of technological salvation. Both camps, they argue, are unfairly maligned. Why? Because apparently, being called out for alarmism or blind techno-optimism is the real problem—not the questionable science or policy prescriptions these labels often describe.
This framing reveals the underlying absurdity of their argument. They want us to trust scientists as impartial experts while simultaneously advocating that their personal emotions and ideologies take center stage. It’s like asking someone to take a fortune-teller seriously because she cries when reading your palm.
The Real Agenda: Ideology Dressed as Science
At its core, this article is less about improving climate science and more about reshaping it into a tool for ideological warfare. By elevating subjective emotions above objective analysis, the authors undermine the very credibility they claim to seek. They dismiss concerns about bias as “gatekeeping” and accuse anyone who values neutrality of perpetuating harm.
But here’s the rub: science isn’t supposed to make you feel good. It’s not here to validate your worldview or comfort your anxieties. Its purpose is to uncover truths, no matter how inconvenient or indifferent to human emotions they may be. When scientists abandon objectivity in favor of activism, they cease to be scientists and become little more than political operatives with PhDs.
Conclusion: Woke Science is Not Science
The article in Nature Climate Change is a case study in what happens when grievance culture infects academia. It replaces rigor with rhetoric, evidence with emotion, and facts with feelings. This isn’t progress—It’s the intellectual equivalent of swapping out a pilot’s controls for a karaoke machine and expecting a smooth landing.
If climate scientists want to be taken seriously, they need to stop whining about how hard their job is and start focusing on doing it well. Until then, they’re not saviors of the planet—they’re just glorified activists cloaked in lab coats, preaching a gospel of despair and self-pity.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A great deal of environmentalism has been semi-mystic activism since the 1960’s, and climate change has been one of the more prominent offenders. What I noticed was that the “solution” offered for global cooling is the same as for global warming, so there was something else operating than real science.
Funding often goes to scientists that scream wolf the loudest.
Unless they’re screaming about pharmaceuticals, apparently.
So. We’ve gone from “cause-based science” with the CRU gang and Hockey Team, to emotion-based science, purple hair, nose rings and all.
All I can do is shake my head ruefully.
Another manifestation of the usual circular argument: If it were not a big lie we are pushing, then climate change (sic) could actually be dangerous. Therefore, we should be allowed to continue to lie about it.
No authors, sorry, you’re going to have to stop lying about it.
“It is overwhelming clear that” these folks are bonkers. When beginning with a wrong premise: “climate change is both real and serious“, everything else if fantasy.
Then there is the other possibility, where the authors look at each other and ask, “Could we write a form of deep satire clearly oozing with cynicism, and obviously beyond-the-pale ridiculous, but if we write it cleverly enough, it could fool science journal editors into thinking we are serious about what we say?“
Since 1850, the average temperature in The Netherlands rose 2°C.
Amsterdam has now the temperature of Paris in 1850.
That is not an existential threat, in fact, it is benign.
This is so stupid, there are hardly words to describe. The whole purpose of the scientific method to separate people from their human emotions so that the truth of the physical world can be figured out. Clearly, these people have absolutely zero understanding of the scientific method & why we need it. This is the most anti-scientific thing I have ever scene ( spoken as a trained scientist).
And of course , this is why “science is dead”
I grew up on “Watch Mr. Wizard” with Don Herbert. I studied science all my life. My undergraduate degree is a BS in Electrical Engineering. It’s interesting that a so-called scientist called me “just an engineer.” I have probably studied more mathematics, physics, and engineering than most “scientists.” It is complete nonsense when some loser activist says I don’t know science.
I grew up with Mr. Wizard too. Boring by today’s standards, but I’ve always detested Bill Nye, the Science Guy.” “The Magic School Bus” was good.
I have a BSEE from CMU simply because their computers kidnapped me and ripped me away from my chemistry major. At the time the Comp Sci Dept didn’t have an undergrad degree program and the term “software engineer” hadn’t been created yet.
I developed a very healthy respect for the math that went into the early days of radio relying the Fourier and Laplace transforms.
On a probability test, it occurred to me I could write a discrete probability equation (discrete as in rolling dice) using the notation we used for impulse functions and integrate them to get the cumulative probability function. I added a little description to help explain what I was doing, but the poor TA didn’t quite get it but gave me credit because I got the right answers.
Mathematicians detest impulses (0 at t < 0 or t > 0, infinite at t = 0, such that the integral is 1. To an EE it’s merely the derivative of what a light switch does. 🙂
“To an EE it’s merely the derivative of what a light switch does. 🙂”
Yes, the unit step function. The derivative of the step function is the unit delta function or impulse function. The integral of the unit step function is the unit ramp function.
I had an argument with Mr. Stokes about second order differential equations, but I realized that the Laplace transforms of a second order differential equation is not exactly the exact solution of all second order differential equations. So I lost that argument. Mr. Stokes is not a dummy when it comes to mathematics–he’s just a dummy when it comes to climate change.
I suspect the problem is that Stokes subscribes to the philosophical position that any means is justified by the end.
Climate Change – Each model made predictions which were wrong. Averaging them compounds the error.
Based on what people share about themselves, and their demonstration of a depth of understanding, I suspect that this group of commenters probably has the highest IQs and level of education of any group of blog commenters on the internet.
I’m sorry to be the one that lowers the average IQ of WUWT commenters.
Ric: “I developed a very healthy respect for the math that went into the early days of radio relying the Fourier and Laplace transforms.”
You may be one of the few people with the skills required to understand how and why my deceptively simple 99-year moving average of sunspot data can produce accurate temperature predictions. Here’s the spreadsheet version.
While the model has been public for some time now, I haven’t yet explained how it works, though I expect to in a few months along with other discoveries. I originally thought the result was interesting enough that people would want to figure it out on their own. Sadly, there’s an abhorrent lack of scientific curiosity these days, and climate scientists have the wrong skill set.
The fact it matches the “not real” HadCrud “adjusted” urban fabrication doesn’t help.
It’s the shape and feature alignment (causality) that’s important. The model has to be scaled from sunspot number to temperature, so it’s insensitive to some types of inaccuracies and distortions.
I think the most egregious data manipulation occurs before 1900. NOAA doesn’t publish an average sea-surface temperature that I could find, but it does publish a gridded dataset from which an average is easily computed. Notice how the SST temperature is higher prior to 1900. For global surface temperature, NOAA and MET datasets both show unchanging temperatures prior to ~1920.
fakery follows at least into the early 2000s.
HadCrut3 had 1939 same as 1998
Graph matches much of the raw data from the NH, and several places in SH
I should clarify, I’ve known for about one year how/why the model works, I just haven’t made that information public.
Jim M, the words science and scientists came about in mid 19th century to describe people like Charles Darwin. The Roman had engineers but engineering goes back to the first making of stone tools & the use of fire. The first man made material was likely Lime, followed fired clay objects. The first smelted metal (real process engineering) was likely lead, followed by separation of silver from lead ore (galena), then copper smelting. In the dark ages (14th to 16th century) alchemists pretending they could make gold from lead or other metals. Climate scientists are todays alchemists with zero knowledge of engineering. (thermodynamics, heat&mass transfer, fluid dynamics etc. are engineering subjects). Not sure in which country your but most engineers study a BE which a specialist division (chemical, civil, electrical or mechanical) in the last 2 years of 4 years. The move now is to study a 5th or 6th year to gain a Masters degree and acceptance for a registered professional engineer with maybe more specialised qualifications such as a chemical engineering graduate gaining a masters or PhD in nuclear engineering or bioengineering.
My wish is that the emphasis switches from science to engineering as engineers are the only ones that can assess complex issues such as the changes in weather and the connections in the total environment including the sun, the moon (tides), and other planets. Who could understanding gravity, evaporation, clouds, electrical & magnetic fields, chemical kinetic etc -not scientists.
I have vastly more respect for engineers than I have for scientists, especially those in Academia, as the consequences for getting things wrong are far more serious for the former than the latter.
I’ll never forget the story I read one that often in the ancient world- when a stone arch was being constructed, sometimes the “engineer” who designed it would be required to stand under it as the keystone was being set. That motivated him to design and build it correctly. Even if not true- it tells me that engineers are under pressure to do the job correctly. Less so for scientists.
“Scientists investigate that which already is; engineers create that which has never been.” — Albert Einstein
“A good scientist is a person with original ideas. A good engineer is a person who makes a design that works with as few original ideas as possible. There are no prima donnas in engineering.” — Freeman Dyson
“Scientists discover the world that exists; Engineers create the world that never was.” — Theodore Von Karman
Thanks.
I’ve saved these.
“just an engineer.”
Eugene Parker (solar scientist who the Parker solar probe was named after) said of the engineers who built the probe (paraphrasing from memory) “If I’m wrong, I can just write another paper. If the engineers are wrong, the project is over”
“. . . scene . . . .”
Is this a play on words? The correct word would be “seen,” but I don’t know what you’re trying to espouse on.
Dang spell check… should be “seen”
The authors E.L.F. (Lisa) Schipper S.S. (Shobha) Maharaj and G.T. (Gretta) Peci are all female.
Bygone era, would that have been when most scientists were unemotional men⸮ There I’ve said it!
Bygone era – they wish. Data rules every era little luvvies. You can hide in your little libtard clown bubbles for as long as you, or somebody else can support you, but it ain’t going to be forever.
Eventually libtard clown bubbles run into cold, hard reality! Reality is still undefeated!
Where is Detective Joe Friday from “Dragnet” when he’s needed?
“Just the facts, ma’am”
I have never met anyone “unemotional”, under-emotional and overemotional; yes.
Finally, after 35 years, someone puts their finger on the problem cli sci has been laboring under: too much objectivity.
Thank you, Schipper et al. Let the Great Correction begin.
Scientists have to walk a line that separates sufficient emotional involvement to defend their hypothesis with facts, but not be blinded to countering facts because of their emotional involvement with their singular hypothesis. The problem comes about when a researcher’s allegiance is to their particular view of reality, versus a quest for the Truth.
I still strongly suggest that researchers acquaint themselves with T. C. Chamberlain’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses (1890). It is not required reading for undergraduates in most disciplines because it was developed by a geologist. However, I’m not even sure that it is still commonly required in the geology curriculum.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/57/7/608/238555?login=false
Multiple working hypotheses should be part of the pantheon of science; right up there with eternal skepticism and the null hypothesis! Go Owls!!
Despite that we often misspell his name, thanks as I didn’t know about the Bioscience article, pleasing that they do publish some real science. The only biological citation (they didn’t have it) that I ever found was in Warren’s Biology and Water Pollution Control (1971) which I used in an assessment and management course instead of the too much politically inspired environmental science/biology books. As one of few books I loaned to a student and didn’t get back, found another, hope I still have it. Apparently never reprinted, mostly on freshwater, but inspirational as it showed how we problem solved in order to handle septic systems instead of now demonizing so many.
I inherited my geologist uncle’s book, one highlighted Chamberlins’ article (Mather and Mason, 1939, Source Book in Geology).
I read it more carefully and was pleased again that as an example they mentioned the oyster disease MSX which stimulated the Virginia job I had for 2+ years. Despite some of us working on leads was surprised a few years ago that the life history was still unknown 6 decades later. Seems to be maybe somewhat like our other disease problems. The Chesapeake situation is more complex depending on the location. The disease which may have been an introduced exotic was more a high salinity problem, already such from other parasites and predators. Some papers on it like to blame it all on humans, whatever the reason, sound familiar? And we don’t seem to know that down under they can be really up above.
Many if not most of us realize this, but forces work against it. Other examples suggested leaving statistical significance for problem solving methods such as decision theory, clinical psychology and medical epidemiology. Wildlife is often too wild to accurately count and they cited the last two, among others. I had my first, and excellent, statistics course in a Department of Wildlife Management.
Germano, J. D. 2001. Reflections on statistics, ecology, and risk assessment. pp. 33-42, In, J. Y Aller, S. A. Woodin and R. C. Aller (Eds.). Organism-Sediment Interactions. Univ. South Carolina Press.
Johnson, D. H. 1999. The insignificance of statistical significance testing. J. Wildl. Manag. 63(3):763-772
Anderson, D. R., K. P. Burnham and W. L. Thompson. 2000. Null hypothesis testing: Problems, prevalence, and an alternative. J. Wildl. Manag. 64(4):912-923.
Enough there for a story tip??
It is way past time for the US gov. to stop funding these little brats!
I didn’t see that the USA funded this group.
“Chicken Little in a lab coat” – what a great line! Google has only four hits for it from two sites. That’s gonna change. 🙂
DuckDuckGo has one, at present (to this article).
re: “The Oppressed Scientist: When Emotions Replace Objectivity in Climate Research”
Scientists have emotional response to climate change too
Who else laughed out loud, or chuckled when they read this headline! Oh puh-leaze I said to myself! “Get a grip, snowflakes.”
Oh for the day when science won’t know what a “snowflake” is! 😎
My first science was with factorial experiments with yields of pasture crops related to levels of trace element additions. Try doing that exercise using emotion?
My second was discovering new mines. There was no point in becoming emotionally attached to an area because no matter what you imagined, irrespective of emotion, an orebody was either present or absent. Measurement was the key.
Imagine the potential for waste in both these examples if emotion was allowed to be a factor.
When you strip it down to the essentials, the same applies to climate research. People depend on crops grown well, people depend on a number of mined products, lives can be lost if either of these fail to improve, so the “existential” claim about climate change has actual competitors that are just as important.
Geoff S
That probably helps explain why it seems (at least to me) that there is more advancement in Materials Science than in most other disciplines. When one is trying to develop something with certain specified properties, it either does or it doesn’t meet the criteria. There is no room for conjecture that in 20 years it ‘might’ pass the test.
When they start off with something inane and fake as the following…
One can dismiss whatever follows as empty propaganda.
1.. Climate has always changed.
2.. The slight warming change since the LIA has been totally beneficial to both humans and ecosystems.
3.. There is no scientific evidence that anything untoward will happen in the near future.
These brainwashed maroons should be giving thankful prayers for our continued warming! The rapid temperature descent back into the next period of glaciation will have the direst of consequences for humanity; especially if we have been unable to free ourselves from the chains of totalitarian propaganda and ignorance under which we currently labor!
Perhaps the next four years will bring about much needed reforms to the education and health systems in the US, with downstream effects throughout the world. A man can dream, can’t he!?
Well then, ramp it up to Ludicrous Speed then …(From movie Spaceballs)
Apparently Boeing has taken this point of view to heart; the use of First Nation shamen as working group leaders in their design unit has had some spectacular results!
Phew the good news! At least the reef will be able to recover and repopulate once the pesky humans have all been doomed by the global boiling-
Two cooler sections of the Great Barrier Reef could survive high global temperatures: study
Bullshit alert for this one –
claiming that the Whitsunday Islands group is part of the GBR.
It’s several hours travel by fast catamaran from the outlying Whitsunday group to the western edges of the GBR proper.
The Whitsunday Islands have coastal fringing reefs, such as can even be found much further south in Moreton Bay, east of Brisbane.
and of course they used RCP8.5 to do their projections.
The bullshit – it just gets wider and deeper.
The fact that the western Pacific was much warmer than now during the MWP and before, and thrived during that period, doesn’t seem to penetrate their thick empty skulls.
Basic science and engineering consists of just a few steps.
Observation and measurement.
Develop an hypothesis to explain independent and dependent variables.
Make predictions.
Verify predictions with observation and experiment.
Until climate science, especially those involved in modeling, can make predictions that are validated, science is neither being practiced nor accomplished.
Einstein said it only took one person to prove him wrong. Each time a “projection” like no Arctic sea ice or islands disappearing occurs, the theory and hypothesis being used is proved wrong. No wonder climate scientists have emotional problems, they simply can’t point to any of their work and say, “See I was correct!”. The best they can do is massage observations to arrive at terribly uncertain projections. Imagine an engineer creating a circuit or building or bridge that didn’t work. He/she wouldn’t be around long for starters and certainly wouldn’t be trusted to accomplish needed work.
Remember the sudden collapse of the FIU Pedestrian bridge?
Yep.
Also studied this in Statics and Dynamics classes, civil engineering classes all EE’s had to take. High voltage pylons aren’t too dissimilar to bridge design.
https://youtu.be/XggxeuFDaDU?si=J8yLiaP1yTB9W3CH
Can’t argue the science so the solution is to cry about it? What a revolting development.
Heh, Origins – ‘What a revoltin’ development this is!” The Life Of Riley William Bendix | Marjorie Reynolds
They can flip burgers instead. At least until robots replace them.
The opposite of objective science is subjective science.
Subjective science can be dismissed as just an opinion.
Very good article!
Probably the one who originated this idea was Stephen Schneider who said “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Now, he and his fellow travelers liked to claim that when you read the entire quote, it takes on a more benign meaning. Nope, not really, but nice try.
once politicians figured they could use it to grab more of our freedoms and money the ‘scientists’ started gaming the system to generate grant money. “Science” died at that moment.
.
“The dominant paradigm holding that science is always objective needs to be challenged.”
Sure. Well the vast majority of crap said or printed about climate change these past few decades has certainly accomplished that goal. Science and objectivity appear to have played no role in this messianic crusade to destroy society. What they are referring to when they say “science” is, in fact just superstition and propaganda pretending to be science and which serves the purpose of a greedy, power-hungry elite of no use to a healthy society.
Very well done….
This has to be the most pitiful report on climate scientists yet. The whole idea is appalling. I’m telling you the CAGW crowd have nothing, they are crying for emotional support and understanding because they realize they have lost the science competition big time. All they have left is crying, whining, threats and punishment. They are pitiful, I don’t see how they can look us in the face. You would think someone in the climate science community would stand up and say STOP!!
Richard Lindzen has said stop since 1990. He’s relentlessly been personally slandered, his career accomplishments disparaged, and his character assassinated. Frederick Seitz spoke out. The attacks were equally vicious. Chris de Freitas, likewise. Peter Ridd, likewise.
There are many others. The prog defamation machine was turned on them all. The social force of vociferous defamation is so great that politicians have been afraid to act.
Pat you are right I was thinking more along the lines of Mann and his cohorts. Studies like this are giving them the worst kind of reputation
Apart from Davide Zanchettin, I’ve not encountered a climate scientist trained, or even willing, to evaluate the physical reliability of their own data and models. Physical error analysis, proper calibration, and uncertainty are absent from the field.
That all being true (and it is), climate scientists are not scientists. Hence their emtionality.
Their conclusions are not supported in science, and they have no way to know that.
One of the things engineers learn is how to address single points of failure. Every strut, every joint, every component in a circuit. Climate scientists rely on hiding the single points in their systems. That is, the localities and regions.
The excuse? The variance of weather. Somehow though, that “variance” is not expressed in the data when combined to a global figure. The cognitive dissonance displayed is indicative of the lack of physical science training involved.