An excellent twitter thread by @RodgerPielkeJr concerning a paper by Hulme, M.

Recommended reading:
Hulme, M. (2011). Reducing the future to climate: a story of climate determinism and reductionism. Osiris, 26(1), 245-266.https://t.co/bwcHL1iot9 pic.twitter.com/PYeRsizGAJ

— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) July 9, 2019

This is an excellent, nuanced, complex article on the factors behind the extreme politicization of climate science & how (some) climate scientists have come to be aggressive opponents of those who actual work in the social and policy sciences. pic.twitter.com/vAsysVCJrZ

— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) July 9, 2019

Hulme: “Climate reductionism is the means by which the knowledge claims of the climate modelers are transferred, by proximity as it were, to the putative knowledge claims of the social, economic, and political analysts.”

— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) July 9, 2019

Hulme: “I suggest that the climate reductionism I have described here is nurtured by elements of a Western cultural pessimism that promote the pathologies of vulnerability, fatalism, and fear.”

Sounds familiar, no?

Read more below (so good and spot on)⤵️ pic.twitter.com/qQKcmoHf0g

— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) July 9, 2019

Hulme‘s writings have given insight on the vicious attitude of some climate scientists towards me, @TheBTI, @sapinker, @ShellenbergerMD, @BjornLomborg, @ReinerGrundmann & Hulme himself
It is not about “denial” but whose expertise should be seen to be authoritative & legitimate…

— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) July 9, 2019

… at some point the emptiness of policy prescriptions from climate scientists (eg, Mann: reduce emissions by 5% per year; Hayhoe: the most important thing is to talk, etc.) has forced the public debate away from actual policy and towards good/bad guys & simple exhortations.

— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) July 9, 2019

Looking back, The Hartwell Paper (2010) was a key moment in pushing back against the hegemony of modal-based climate discussions grounded in the physical sciences: https://t.co/CDQuKrFbvd
We participants in that effort have all gone our different ways, making us easy targets.

— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) July 9, 2019

Bottom line:
An important part of climate debate is not actually about climate but to re-enforce and sustain power structures that not only benefit the hegemony of physical-science based modeling, but … sorry to say … the status quo of climate policy, which is a failure.
/END

— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) July 9, 2019