Climate catastrophism is not mainly a scientific phenomenon

Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech University in the USA, has been the object of remarkably virulent vituperation on climate catastrophist blogs because she gave a favourable review to Adam Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion. Interviewed on Collide-a-scape, she gave a trenchant explanation:

My hypothesis is that the level of vitriol in the climate blogs reflects the last gasp of those who thought they could influence national and international energy policy through the power politics of climate science expertise. The politics of expertise is about how scientific information is used in the policy making process, including how diverging viewpoints are interpreted and how science is weighed relative to values and politics in the policy debate. The problem comes in when the “power” politics of expertise are played. Signals of the “power” play include: hiding uncertainties and never admitting a mistake; developing a consensus with a high level of confidence; demanding that the consensus receive extreme deference relative to other view points; insisting that that science demands a particular policy; discrediting scientists holding other view points by dismissing them as cranks, trivializing their credentials and say that they are not qualified to hold an opinion; and attacking the motives of anyone that challenges the consensus. Sound familiar? In the case of climate change, the authoritarianism of “science tells us we should . . . ” could not withstand the public perception of scientists engaging with pressure groups, lack of transparency that meant people were unable to evaluate the information themselves, and then the Climategate affair that raised questions about the integrity of the scientists.

I think her POV is too blinkered by her academic milieu. It does not address the far greater phenomenon generated by the political and economic band-wagon riding, which has operated in synergy with the academic climate catastrophists to generate mass hysteria.

The vitriol hurled at Curry is highly personal because the throwers feel threatened at a deeply personal level. We must look to the subconscious anxieties - perhaps including a sense of powerlessness and a desire to assert control - that have made the issue so emotive. The scientific controversy is just a symptom.