Climate Politics as Manichean Paranoia

A form of collective insanity has swallowed climate science and journalism

Politics is how we get done the business of society. But there are better and worse forms of politics. Manichean politics are among the worst.

Recently, I had the opportunity to witness a stemwinding sermon by a climate scientist. Scientific authority was invoked, evocative graphs and videos were displayed, and we were warned of the coming end of the world — But not all hope was lost, as salvation through repentance was promised.

Those who might disagree with his good word were cast not just as wrong, but evil.

How did public discussion of climate get to a place where the angriest, most intolerant, and deeply partisan have come to represent climate science, journalism, and advocacy?

I have thought a lot about this question for a long time, having for many decades had a front row seat (more like a backstage pass) to the climate debate. My attention has been focused more intently on this question over the past few months as I’ve observed the truly disgusting treatment of the five authors of the DOE CWG report by many of their peers and by journalists.

To be sure, the evolution of climate change from a pressing challenge to be dealt with into a deeply partisan political symbol has involved the willfull participation of those across the political spectrum, including elected officials. As well, climate science is full of smart, thoughtful and sincere researchers who stay out of the political fray but whose excellent work has been overshadowed by the public face of their community.

The collective insanity that has swallowed the climate discussion is reflected in the climate community’s (scientists, journalists, NGOs) promotion of the most partisan and even hateful voices to represent the public face of climate science.

The resulting Manichean politics reflects the consequences of these choices.¹ The climate community did not have to go in the direction that it did, and it could still change course at any point.² The responses to the DOW CWG report indicate clearly that the seductive excitement of framing climate science and politics as a battle between good and evil has been impossible to resist.

A Manichean religious worldview holds that the world is divided between forces of good and evil, and that salvation will occur through the forces of light winning out over the forces of darkness.

From this perspective, the forces of darkness — according to climate Manicheans — include fossil fuels and anyone associated with political conservatives (or even worse, centrists). This perspective holds that the pure evil of the forces of darkness threatens the end of civilization. How exciting!

Manichean paranoia manifests itself in the climate debate in efforts to delegitimize and even destroy the careers of those who deviate from the accepted political orthodoxy.

An example of this destructive impulse can be seen in the personal attacks against the five authors of the recent DOE CWG report. Both that report and responses to it were prepared in a political context. The CWG report sought to highlight scientific issues that have been overlooked or deemphasized by formal climate assessments in support of rescinding the EPA Endangerment finding. Responses to it have sought to argue against reconsideration of the finding.³

Here is how Politico characterized them earlier this week:

The truth is buried by partisan and corrupt researchers

Politico explains that the DOE report authors are linked to groups who are apparently illegitimate:

The DOE report relies on studies or reports that have sometimes been amplified by the fossil fuel industry, or are connected to conservative groups that oppose government efforts to address climate change.

The irony is deep.

Politico is sponsored by the fossil fuel industry group American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) which was founded in 1902 as the National Petroleum Association.

Politico is owned by the German media giant Axel Springer, which Foreign Policy argues has a long history of championing right wing politics:

The Axel Springer empire, by contrast, has always been unabashedly arch-conservative. Since its start in Germany’s postwar era, Axel Springer hasn’t hesitated to indulge in overt (if largely improvised) right-wing populism—even when that requires bending journalistic rules.

With fossil fuels powering more than 80% of the world’s energy and about 45% of the world’s population living under right-of-center rule⁴ it should come as no surprise that individuals and companies might have connections to those in the fossil fuel industry or conservatives.

To be clear, there is no evidence that I am aware of that Politico’s journalism is corrupted by its intimate connections to the fossil fuel industry or to conservatives. Similarly, I am aware of no evidence suggesting corruption of the five authors of the DOE CWG report based on the alleged connections to these apparently illegitimate groups.⁵

“In democratic countries you get things done by compromising your principles in order to form alliances with groups about whom you have grave doubts.” — Richard Rorty 1998

Manichean paranoia was taken to another level this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists — a highly partisan NGO — which accuses the DOE CWG report authors of scientific misconduct and financial corruption:

• “John Christy: Winning fossil fuel friends by distorting climate data to minimize warming . . . Christy’s role in the Climate Working Group’s report likely ensured that long-debunked science was presented as if it were credible dissent”;

• “Steven Koonin: Emphasizing doubt and serving fossil fuel interests . . . The selective way Koonin treats evidence aligns neatly with the interests of polluting industries”;

• “Roy Spencer: Analytic errors and fossil fuel ties . . . PR Watch notes that Spencer was paid $4,000 to serve as an expert witness for Peabody Energy”;

• “Judith Curry: Cashing in on doubt . . . Curry’s consulting firm works with utilities, insurers, and fossil fuel companies, which has raised concerns about potential undue influence of commercial interests”;

• “Ross McKitrick: Economics that excuse pollution . . .”

The UCS concludes that these five authors offer no scientifically credible arguments and that their motivations are obviously impure:

Each of these authors has a record of disputed or selective analyses that deny or downplay the severity of the climate crisis, and each has ties to fossil fuel–funded institutions or front groups that benefit from such narratives. . . The problem isn’t just who funds or amplifies these contrarian voices. Their science itself is bad, built on errors, cherry-picked data, and arguments that have been repeatedly rejected by the broader scientific community.

This sort of over-the-top denigration of perceived political enemies is the sort of thing we might expect from Donald Trump’s social media feed — But perhaps it is just reflective of how we practice politics in 2025.

Politics is not about getting everyone to think alike, but getting people who think differently to act alike. —Walter Lippmann 1923 (paraphrased)

Yesterday, Michael Mann, a leading voice of the Manichean climate movement, announced that he was giving up one of his administrative titles at the University of Pennsylvania so that he could focus more on “advocacy.”

On social media, some viewed this as a demotion or punishment for Mann and a win for university institutional neutrality. Far from it on both counts.

Manichean paranoia. This behavior is celebrated and rewarded in the climate community. Mann has also Tweeted often invoking the notion of political violence against his perceived enemies. Rewarding this behavior is a choice.

Mann’s decision to give up a largely meaningless university title simply reflects the fact that in the Manichean climate movement there are far more personal and professional rewards in being an uncompromising political extremist than there are in being seen as a high-level university administrator. Mann retained his university center directorship, indicating that institutional neutrality is clearly not the objective. Penn as an institution still promotes Manichean climate politics.

Mann may have been among the earliest and most prominent Manicheans, but his successes have spawned many copycats and a younger generation who are drawn to a perceived battle between good and evil. As a visible participant in climate discussions I see Manichean climate politics and its pathological consequences every day.

I’m not sure how the climate community corrects course, or even if there is a perception among community leaders that a course correction is needed. However, one thing I am sure of — climate policy implementation on mitigation and adaptation will be hamstrung so long as climate leaders promote Manichean politics.

Durable policy does not emerge from those fighting a perceived battle between good and evil, but through a collective commitment to working together among people who might disagree about aspects of science and politics, but who are willing to set aside those differences to pursue shared interests.

If you think we need to move beyond Manichean climate politics, please click that “❤️ Like.” More likes mean that THB rises in the Substack algorithm and gets in front of more readers. Thanks!

Comments welcomed! Remember that here at THB we model how to have constructive discourse with and about those who we might disagree. No comments of a personal nature and no insults. Let’s stick to evidence and argument, and agree to disagree when necessary. Thanks!

THB is among those few places online where people of goodwill can meet to discuss, debate, and disagree on politically contentious topics involving contested science. If you value THB as a forum please consider subscribing or upgrading to a paid subscription. Paid subscribers make THB go and also have access to THB Pro, with PDFs of some of my books, THB Insider, Five Figures, and paywalled THB posts. Thank you!

1. You can view the slides from my 2017 talk in London — Climate Politics as Manichean Paranoia — here.

2. In a future post I’ll describe the evolution of the climate debate over the past 30 years and the specific choices that were made that set us down a pathological path. A hint of what’s to come — The battle between blogs Real Climate and Climate Audit involving many familiar names was a mjor factor in where we have wound up today. Stay tuned.

3. I have argued that science is not really much of an issue in the reconsideration of the endangerment finding. I have also argued that there is scientific merit in the DOE CWG as well as in responses to it. In Manichean politics such nuance is simply not allowed.

4. According to ChatGPT.

5. Also, to be clear, each of the five authors of the DOE CWG report have accomplished scientific careers. Accusations of fraud or miscounduct are unsupportable, and perhaps actionable, for those so inclined.