So, I really, really, really disagreed with this Judith Warner piece in the New York Times magazine over the weekend, drawing an analogy between left wing postmodern attacks on science and present day right wing climate science denial. I've just done a lengthy rebuttal at DeSmogBlog, showing that if anything, climate deniers are clueless about science studies and its insights; if they weren't, they wouldn't be able to take the positions they do. Brief quote:
...the idea that science is the embodiment of "truth" is something with which climate deniers blithely agree. They think that they are right and that the scientific consensus about global warming is wrong--objectively. They’re not out there questioning whether science is the best way of getting at the truth; they’re out there talking as though their scientists know the truth. Can you picture James Inhofe citing Derrida or Foucault? The very idea is comical. Frankly, if climate deniers were more conversant with science studies, I have to believe that they would feel a lot less sure of themselves—and they would never have been able to make such a big fuss about “ClimateGate.” “ClimateGate” is the quintessential example of scientists showing, through their private emails, that they’re people too; that they have passions and feelings, that they say things they shouldn’t and make mistakes. No shock at all to people in “science studies,” who can tell you the same thing about, say, the private writings of Isaac Newton.
You can read the full DeSmogBlog piece here.
