I feel a little awkward in that M’s comment on the post “Sciencey Spice Etc” is such a perfect set up for the post I was intending to write regardless that even I am a bit suspicious about it’s authenticity (it is a real comment nonetheless).
In a nutshell, the comment reveals a naive and dangerously simplistic notion about what both science and politics are, but which I believe is fairly common in the science community.
The post in question discusses and seeks to understand the phenomenon of Judith Curry and her blog Climate Etc as a social and socio-political event within the broader context of climate change Denialism, and begins to examine some of the gender and other dynamics which appear to be in play.
M says “I find the gender-based speculation in this post highly unnecessary, and even inappropriate. Stick to criticizing the lack of science in JC’s blog rather than attempting amateur psychoanalysis.”
“Stick to criticizing the lack of science in JC’s blog“
Right.
That’s worked really well for us.
We simply document the bad science and lack of rationality in the climate change Denier arguments and they simply go away, c’est touts.
Not.
Obviously.
For those who missed it, climate change Denial has been increasing, not decreasing. Our strategy is not working. When are we going to acknowledge that while documenting the absence of science or rationality in the Denialosphere may be necessary to making our society a reality based one, it is clearly not sufficient.
More accurately, since we already acknowledge it, when are we going to change our behaviour accordingly? (HINT: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.)
Why would a community that self-identifies as rational “stick to” a strategy that on the face of it is largely ineffective?
Or are we as afraid of change as the Deniers are?
GUILDENSTERN: Is that what people want? THE PLAYER: It's what we do.
Make no mistake, documenting the Denier lies and frauds is absolutely necessary, it just does not seem to be sufficient.
“Ways of knowing” for two hundred points
Seeking to understand and explain observed phenomenon is a field of human endeavour known as …. science?
Further, in conceiving of science we too often simplistically jump to the more formal rigourous testing of a hypothesis as dictated by the scientific method, forgetting (if you have never been a working scientist) that it is preceded by a long period of more informal (but often quite rigourous) discussions of possible hypotheses.
To even begin to formulate a testable hypothesis about anything except the most trivial phenomena it is necessary to intellectually explore the possibilities. In the scientific world this is done constantly in every conceivable settings, often in discussion with others. That one would begin or continue this more informal phase of intellectual inquiry on a blog is not contrary to science, it IS science. This phase is not sufficient, but it is necessary.
“Things are the way they are because they got that way.”
Like all great truths Boulding’s axiom sounds trivial when you say it, which unfortunately leads many to overlook its’ profound significance.
As a former evolutionary biologist I know it was the question that ruled every aspect of what I did, and I assume the same is true of cosmologists, anthropologists and many other fields of enquiry. Unfortunately too many fields seemed to lend themselves to forgetting it.
Imagine someone who is trying to understand the science of billiards. They are given a “snapshot” of a game as it is just after the cue ball has been struck and then as it progresses over the next minute or so. Once they have determined the mass and kinetic energy of the cue ball, the friction coefficients of the relevant surfaces, etc they may even accurately predict the eventual pattern of the balls on the table once they come to rest.
However, the mysterious energy which the cue ball had, where did it come from? If it occurs again, will it be of the same force and vector? Will the initial energy input be found only in white balls? only in one ball at a time?
The pattern of balls as we found them is the consequence of historical forces at play, and real understanding now is only possible by looking at the past. If our metaphorical game of billiards took place extremely slowly over epochs it would be eons before we understood how it worked.
Now try to imagine understanding continental drift by only taking measurements from this moment on rather than using the historical record. Or evolution, or climate, or the solar system, or pretty much any of the sciences. You cannot understand “now” until you understand the forces that shaped it.
So how is it that we hope to understand the political moment that is now without critically examining the forces that shaped it?
attempting amateur psychoanalysis
A smug remark obviously meant to be disparaging to which I can only reply that I thank God that Darwin was not afraid to attempt science as an amateur, and Einstein, and Mendel, and …
Notice how “psychoanalysis” includes the word 
“analysis?” If the thinking is flawed then cite specifically where and how, but do not cavalierly dismiss it in the erroneous belief that an uninformed opinion stated as a baseless observation is somehow more intellectually rigourous than an actual argument (whether flawed or not) that is laid out. The argument is at least an attempt at science, the dismissal is mere ignorance and prejudice given voice.
highly unnecessary, and even inappropriate.
Documenting the reality of anthropogenic climate change may be a scientific issue, but what society does about it is a political one.
Insomuch as i) we are not dispassionately watching a yeast culture poison itself, but a rather more grandiose version of that analogy that includes our own species as well as millions of others, and ii) whether scientists or not we all inhabit this globe and have a direct interest in the consequences of the social response to climate change, and iii) we all have a moral and ethical responsibility to participate positively in our society, why would we not participate in the socio-political process?
Politics should have no place in science, but that does not mean scientists and the scientifically literate should have no place in politics. I realize that as it is currently playing out it seems as if one is required to pass an incompetency test to participate in the political process, but that is not how it was meant to work.
So how is an attempt to understand the underlying forces that have shaped our socio-political moment “highly unnecessary, and even inappropriate.”?
gender-based
The historical forces that shaped our current situation with respect to climate change (both the change itself and our lack of response to it) are political. We cannot understand where we are without examining and understanding those forces, and without understanding we cannot hope to participate effectively.
It is no more coincidence that the groups that are preyed upon (women, people of colour, etc) by the powers that be are the same ones that will be hit first and worst by climate change, any more than it is mere coincidence that both gorillas and whales have hair and suckle their young. The historical forces that shaped the denial of climate change are the same ones that shaped the status of women, and for the same reasons.
So why the objection to a gender analysis? or a class analysis? or race? or generational? Why the objection to attempting to understand?
Consistency, a radical concept
Which of the following errors do we wish to keep repeating (choose as many as needed):
- ignore the ineffectiveness of our tactics and strategy (corollary: give lip service to acknowledging the failure, but no more);
- continue doing what we know despite it’s ineffectiveness;
- dismiss/reject analyses that threaten our world view;
- cling to the belief that the role of science in politics is distinct from all other politics;
- wallow in arrogant and smug rejection of newer fields of science and enquiry because they have not yet developed the tools and other foundations that older fields have.
Or for the purpose of ease and simplicity do we wish to commit the Grand Denier fallacy? viz simply bundle up all of the empirical evidence that threatens our simplistic world view into one convenient package and refuse to deal with it on the grounds that in our opinion it does not exist. Is that to be our strategy?
Here’s a radical notion, how about when participating in the politics we don’t be as ignorant and naive about politics as the Deniers and public are about science?
I will go even further, how about we bring to politics the same sort of rigour and intellectual intensity as we use for science? Put another way, how about we actually know wtf we are talking about and wtf we are doing?
Or is that too much of a paradigm non-shift? (aka consistency)
If we hope to understand and hence meaningfully engage in the politics we have to study them objectively, learn the literature, recognize the patterns and commonalities, and act appropriately.
For some this may not be a palatable prospect, but then heliocentricism, evolution and quantum mechanics weren’t either.
To imagine that the politics of climate change is somehow separate from and independent of other political struggles in naive and delusional. Those that embrace the “coincidence” hypothesis are not competent at either science or politics.
If we want the world to deal with the reality of anthropogenic climate change we are going to have to deal with the reality of real world political struggle, and we do not have the luxury of a few decades to wallow in denial and self-absorbed quibbling first. If we want to wear the mantle of scientific rationality we are going to have to earn it by actually living it, now, without exception!
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
–
It is worth knowing and abiding by whether you comment on this blog or not.
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
- The “Spam” Comment Thread is for comments posted by people who think that they can ignore site policy.
Greenfyre's 
Wow. I can’t believe that commenting on a blog whose viewpoints I agree with is frustrating me as much as trying to correct the science on contrarian blogs.
“We simply document the bad science and lack of rationality in the climate change Denier arguments and they simply go away, c’est touts.
Not.
Obviously.”
And how is a blog-post full of statements about leather and skirts and dolls an improvement? I grant that my original statement was a criticism without specifics – partially because I honestly felt that the flaws in the post I was responding too were so obvious that I didn’t need to go into details. I’ve made a follow-up response there, perhaps it meets your qualifications?
“A smug remark obviously meant to be disparaging to which I can only reply that I thank God that Darwin was not afraid to attempt science as an amateur, and Einstein, and Mendel, and …”
Yes, perhaps I was trying to be disparaging. Hmm. As are you, perhaps? Just a tad? And maybe you’re even being smug?
But perhaps there would be a right way to do a gender analysis. Certainly, environmental justice is an important endeavor which looks at impacts by race, gender, and class. Similarly, there might be a useful area of analysis which could ask why most of the contrarians are indeed white, old, and male. But picking out one particular contrarian and talking about how her actions are driven by her gender is in my opinion NOT useful, and in this case, not supported by hard evidence.
Indeed, as I allude to in my new response comment, you could replace Curry’s name in much of the blog-post with the name of practically any controversial female and they would apply just as well (well, probably you’d want to swap in the word “politics” for “science” for Rice and/or Clinton). The original post was disappointing, and your defense of it similarly so (though… kudos for the R&G Are Dead reference).
—-
“So how is it that we hope to understand the political moment that is now without critically examining the forces that shaped it?”
Hey, lets not forget that we do understand quite a lot, thanks to investigators like Oreskes & Conway (“Merchants of Doubts”) and many others. People the deniers fear and hate.
Yet, not even that has been enough. It is hard to fight liars when many people want to believe their lies.
—-
Yes, you were not so clear about it.
We need to go deeper than just identifying the Marshall Institute etc, but it is a necessary starting point.
Anyhow, I think it is the right side of the equation – [Politicians][Public][Media] – that we most need to understand better.
See pp.37-40 of The Machinery of Climate Anti-Science. Some of that is pretty dense, since it’s a first iteration and geared to having me speak to it, video here.
Debunking is necessary, but *actionable* items are even better, although they take longer attention-span.
—-
“As expected I have learned that women do have some very important things to say about this issue and the fact that it may not be framed in the ways that we are used to seeing, or focused on the same points that the climate science community is used to discussing rather begs the question as to who is it who is being irrelevant?”
Hmm. Thank you for this thoughtful point. I will have to mull over this… it is possible (nay, likely!) that my critique is based in part on my being used to a different way of framing issues. I feel like in this case my critique is justified, but I certainly have a number of friends (especially those in the social sciences) who have valid approaches that are very different from mine, and which benefit from not leaping to conclusions of worth despite their differences from my usual approach.
(as an example, I started reading Artscience by David Edwards and felt like it was giving me a little bit of perspective on the validity of the approach of a modern artist, where I have at times been dismissive of some of their, um, wackier pieces. Though I still can’t get appreciate Mondrian or his successor who made the shocking leap to angled lines as well as vertical and horizontal ones)
M,
I’m curious why you acknowledge that Greenfyre replied to you and you find his relatively simple, obvious comment ‘thoughtful’; and ignore me, and overlook the experience and insight that I bring.
Even though an issue at hande is sexism, and you are not a woman but I am, and I am very experienced with analysis, and also a politically- committed feminist, and have has spent my worklife on women’s health and well-being – and teach feminist philosophy and philosophy of science on the side– and was discussing the issue from my experience in addition to my objective social observations, it is YOU who knows more about sexism and what I’m saying and why I’m saying it.
Maybe. Either that, or you have just illustrated the root nature of patriarchy i.e., the guaranteed authority of the male speaker position. No matter what.
To be clear, it is not without soul-searching that I have outed Judith Curry. But then, you wouldn’ t know anything about what I do and do not consider, and what I fully appreciate about the situation of women – including a woman scientist, in a heavily male dominated discipline. However, women around the world (especially the most vulnerable women) actually matter more than this one women with many choices and alot of accountability for her nonsense, when push comes to shove. Get it?
And by the way, Greenfyre is the source of your criticism of the Spice girls pic – it was his editing choice, not mine. For the sake of solidarity, I decided I could live with it and interpret it along the lines I explained to you. Again, you are clueless in your perceptions of me.
I have taken heat from men on this blog for my initial defense of Judith Curry. Then I went away to make observations and see if I could participate meaningfully in her purported multi-disciplinary blog in relation to discussions of policy (because she said this was her goal). As it turns out, I had never met a more dense or insincere academic. It surprises me that she could have a position of any responsibility with students. What’s more, I tried, but the blog is not about accurate presentation of the science or consideration of a range of policy perspectives. She is transparently a simple minded neocon, not an intelligent one – so we couldn’t chat about anything. The gender dynamics were not a complete surprise, but sad to observe in 2011. That is the overall context of my return, my attempt at humour, and a beginning analysis — which I planned as a debriefing with my friends, here, and a precursor to real analysis. You didn’t bother to find out anything relevant about context… or ask me. That’s unfortunate. And I am annoyed by it/you.
Sorry, I read Greenfyre’s response before I read yours, and so he got an answer and you didn’t (I don’t have infinite time to spend on blogs). But thanks for pulling the “I’m a woman and you’re not” and the “you answered him but not me so you’re sexist” ploys.
Also, it wasn’t the _pictures_ of the short skirts and dolls to which I had objected, but rather the text that they were illustrating.
eg, “Judith Curry recycles what all other denier blogs say, while dressed up in a skirt, to the applause of a cadre of old fashioned, mostly retired males who express a high level of rivalry with scientists.”
“Like a plastic doll, she has re-purposed herself and regularly updates her clothes and accessories on her blog. Sure she has a science job, ambition, and rooted hair and eyes: but she is just a libertarian cut-out doll, and we need to look afresh at this version of sexism.”
Let me try rewriting your blog post for you and maybe this will help you understand why I think your post is objectionable.
“Condi Rice recyles what all the other neo-cons say, while dressed up in a skirt, to the applause of a cadre of old fashioned, military males who express a high level of rivalry with diplomats. I can also say that I don’t think there is any of the usual quasi-pornographic perceptions of her going on in their defense of her, eg I don’t think they are diminishing her by envisioning her in leather. However, there is something perhaps even more unsettling about a grown woman who likes to play mischief-making little girl to a group of dissatisfied men. Like a plastic doll, she has re-purposed herself and regularly updates her clothes and accessories. Sure, she has a high-level cabinet post, ambition, and rooted hair and eyes: but she is just a neo-con cut out doll and we need to look afresh at this version of sexism”.
Or shall I do it again with Hillary Clinton? Or Maggie Thatcher? Or Janet Reno? See, you can take _any_ powerful female you disagree with in a male-dominated field and come up with how they are “just playing a mischief-making little girl”.
Really, I try but cannot see how you can get away with calling a female professor a “mischief-making little girl” who is “like a plastic doll” who “regularly updates her clothes and accessories” and _not_ realize that even if you aren’t _trying_ to be sexist, your language is, through and through.
Unless – do you have evidence that she is regularly updating her clothes and accessories on the blog?
“Also when someone consistently demonstrate the inability to get much current climate science right, and seems unable to self-assess, it raises the question of whether they were always not so competent, and what enabled them (over others).”
See – this is also sexist. Some of my female friends struggled in school, and some of those female friends were therefore accused of only having been accepted because of affirmative action. This was a bad blow to their self esteem. Of course, my male friends who had similar struggles were allowed to struggle on their own grounds. That’s one type of sexism. Similarly, why do you need to raise the possibility that Curry was always incompetent and a beneficiary of affirmative action, but, for example, Lindzen or Dyson get to be evaluated on their own grounds as formerly good scientists who have gone wrong?
You are right that I don’t know you, where you are coming from, or what you intend to mean with your writing. But regardless of what you intended to mean, your writing certainly reads to me like it was reeking of sexism. And maybe I could have been more gentle in how I criticized your post, but it hit many of my buttons because of all the friends I’ve watched struggle with sexism in its many forms, where they have to overcome being judged as a representative of their gender rather than on their own grounds.
Shorter ‘M’
You are concerned that I am engaging in internalized sexism.
That’s a fair concern.
Here’s mine: when it comes to analyzing oppression, women can’t be accused of unconscious internalized sexism every time we find ourselves in the unfortunate position of having to understand how abuses of power are perpetrated or supported by other women.
You might want to consider whether your version of this ends up co-opting any analysis of power relations, including problematic gender relations, by women, about women, for women.