Science, as in "the application of the scientific as a tool for examining data, developing hypotheses, testing those hypotheses and developing a working theoretical model" should - no, must be objective. The success of this process can only result from a cold, dispassionate analysis of data - of facts.
Some topics of discussion, though, seem to be devolving into hyper-emotional arguments. Climate change, for example, tends to bring out the emotional arguments. Now, some scientists, and I use the term in the broadest possible sense, are stating outright that objectivity is not only possible in science but necessary.
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.
This is where we point out that the only way science can work is if it is objective. There is no place in science for emotion, no place for pre-existing biases. It's not that we don't have them, but success requires setting them aside.
Case in point: When I was taking my undergraduate education in Biology (Field Zoology and Behavior) I was required to do an undergraduate independent research project. I chose to undergo a behavioral study on white-tailed deer over 12 months, tracking movement patterns by time of day in two areas, one where the deer were hunted, and one where they were not. I hypothesized that the deer in the non-hunted area would move by day more in winter, during and after the hunting season, than in the hunted area.
When I crunched the first three months' worth of data, which encompassed the hunting season, I found just the opposite to be the case - there was no statistical difference in movement patterns in the two areas. I decided I had to alter my hypothesis, and so went to my faculty adviser, read him my initial results, and told him of the change.
"Congratulations," he said. "You're doing science."
I wasn't emotionally wedded to the hypothesis. When the data contradicted it, I changed the hypothesis. That's how science works. But that's not how the people claiming to do climate science operate.
See Related: Fossil Fuels Are a Blessing That Developing Countries Should Fully Embrace
John Kerry: Africa Must Choose 'Right Kinds' of Electricity. Guess Who Should Pay for It?
Climate Activists Demand $5 Trillion a Year - Storm Out of COP29 When They Don't Get Their Way
But the climate activists aren't doing science. They aren't dispassionately analyzing data. And now the mask is off when a group of people claiming to be scientists are claiming that objectivity is bad and that emotions should drive inquiry. In climate research, apparently it's now a never-ending Opposite Day.
For too many people involved in the study of the almost impossibly vast, chaotic system that is this planet's climate, the entire issue has become a political and, yes, in some cases a religious argument. That's not only not science. It's anti-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.
There really isn't anything to add to that. But the data is out there if anyone wants to find it. Right here at RedState, in fact, we regularly bring you the information and leads where you can see the data for yourself.
And that's the key; whenever we are faced with the climate scolds who are shouting that we must surrender our modern lifestyle to deal with the booger-man of climate change, we must demand the data. Demand they show their work. Demand a dispassionate analysis.
That's actual science. That's the only way the scientific method can work properly, whether you're studying deer or climate.
