The Dialectic is Interested in Climate Scientists

I'm very much in agreement with Dave Roberts about the ultimate futility of any effort to "keep the politics out" of climate science:

Curry may be able to remain scrupulously apolitical, if that's her inclination. But climate science in general cannot escape politics. Not because scientists — or the advocates and politicians who take it seriously — did anything to bring it on themselves. It's just that an alliance of energy incumbents and far-right ideologues has chosen to lie relentlessly about it. In the milieu of current climate and energy politics, speaking the truth is a political act. The only way to escape politics is to lapse into silence.

That's moralized language. A different way of putting it would be à la Trotsky's quip that you may not be interested in the dialectic, but the dialectic is interested in you. It's possible to have meaningful dialogue about an issue on a technical "non-political" level if and only if the political system isn't interested in the question. In the early part of the decade, monetary policy was a "non-political" issue and Ben Bernanke could float quantitative easing at conferences and a bunch of guys with PhDs would discuss it calmly. Today it's different. Monetary policy makes headlines, Mike Pence issues press releases denouncing QE, Sarah Palin offers her take on Twitter, etc.

That's life. I understand that people don't like it. Personally I prefer talking about issues that aren't at the forefront of national politics. I've had great conversations over the past year about postal banking with people who are considerably more leftwing than I am and with people who are considerably more rightwing than I am. That's because obviously America isn't going to institute a postal banking system in the short-term, so it's a pleasant non-partisan conversation. So I definitely sympathize with the desire of scientists working in the climate space to stay "out of politics." But politics is interested in climate science! A lot of policymakers have looked at the science and drawn the conclusion that a dramatic policy response is warranted. A dramatic policy response, however, upsets many stakeholders who have a vested interest in attacking both the policy inference and the underlying science.