by Charles Rotter, Watts Up With That:
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?
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
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.
Read More @ WattsUpWithThat.com
