Kuhn noted that the Earth-centred Ptolemaic system of astronomy, based on elaborately waltzing

planets, "worked" for a long time but eventually became a monster whose complications
overwhelmed its usefulness. Then along came Copernicus. The resultant destruction of the
Earth-centred universe led to enormous soul-searching, as did Darwin's vaporizing of the
assumption of biological "progress" towards divine ends.

For most modern liberals, including many scientists, the market sun still goes around the
government Earth, which is a paradigm they are reluctant to change. Policy skeptics, by contrast,
who are still trying to establish the revolutionary and counterintuitive insights of Adam Smith,
point out that carbon rationing, green industrial strategy and aid transfers under the aegis of
"clean development" are — whatever the science — economic junk- NetZero Politics, 2010
From one perspective, EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP) is a triumph of the Church of
the Environment, a bold effort to remake the electric grid in response to the assumed imperative
of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
From another angle, CPP looks different. It is the last gasp of a dying scientific paradigm, one
fated to join the museum of oddities of science, such as phlogiston, the idea that bleeding a
patient is the road to health, and the rejection of plate tectonics theory- JV DeLong, writing for
Forbes

 “In the year 1615 if you asked scientists, 97% of them would say the sun rotated around the
Earth” (Atkin, 2015)- Senator Ted Cruz on global warming, during a meeting of the Senate
Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness 

THOMAS KUHN AND PARADIGM THEORY

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions1 is the most widely cited philosophy of science
text of the last 60 years. The widespread appeal probably comes from the popularity of Kuhn's
now-ubiquitous paradigm theory. The book centers around it, presenting a historical examination
of how scientific progress is generated, mainly through a cyclical succession of paradigm shifts
and some of the most significant advances in the history of science. According to the Kuhnian
model, scientific progress occurs through this cyclical succession of paradigm shifts and crises. 

A quick summary— a "paradigm" is a system for generating science shared by

professionals in a specialized field and based on a shared set of fundamental claims about the
world.   

"Normal science" refers to research that aims to extend and refine an existing paradigm.
A normal scientist does not doubt those fundamental claims or question the current paradigm.
Nonetheless, normal science's prolonged dedication to clarity invariably discovers anomalies.
"Anomalies" refer to problems that defy resolution inside the confines of a given paradigm.
Eventually, these problems defy resolution within the confines of a given paradigm. At some
point, anomalies may become so significant that they induce a state of "crisis," compelling the
community to bring some foundations back into the discussion. 

This crisis, according to Kuhn, is the point where scientists or sociologists can introduce
a different epistemological foundation into a discussion. If the scientific community can identify
1
Kuhn, Thomas S. The structure of scientific revolutions. Vol. 111. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1970.
a new paradigm with increased problem-solving ability, it will eventually be proposed and
implemented via sociological means.

SPECIOUS CLAIMS

Kuhn's ideas are increasingly used in the larger climate debate. Climate skeptics have
tried to present themselves as contrarians to the prevailing climate science paradigm, as
Copernicus2 expertly pointing out a secular religion's fallacies. However, there is more to
overthrowing a paradigm than a simple protestation to the prevailing consensus. Deniers do not
propose a competing paradigm3 that explains more existing anomalies – no climate skeptic
questions how we use fundamental ideas of physics and biology to understand the world. No
climate change skeptic has cited inexplicable evidence within the climate change paradigm. No
skeptic has pointed out a clutch of anomalies that would grip the current paradigm in a crisis.
You need to provide convincing alternative theories that the skeptics forget to present. 

There is no disagreement over fundamental worldviews; instead, there is disagreement

over which forces and events emerge from a shared understanding of the universe and have the
most credible explanatory power. For example, in the debate over heliocentrism, no one accused
the other of not believing in the sun's existence. Despite its political and religious implications,
heliocentric never established itself as a bridge between the theist and atheist worldviews.
Instead, evidence that was inexplicable within the current paradigm (movement of the planets,
largely) was debated at length. 

  There is no logical way to choose between conflicting theoretical paradigms before

interpreting data, just as there is no objective way to determine which, if either of the
contradictory paradigms, is ultimately the accurate one. Deciding that global warming does not
exist is not a simple matter of sitting down at a table and intently imagining what the CEO of
Exxon might have to say. Changing your paradigm does not require you to change your mind; it
simply requires you to alter your way of looking at life, or your entire way of living it.

While measuring the future effects of greenhouse gases on the climate system is complex
and uncertain, the hypothesis that the impact of cO2 on the climate is inconclusive or
non-existent is plainly false. Those making specious references to Kunn may not grasp the
thinking or the philosophy of science in great detail. However, they should comprehend the
concept of 'refutation.' Climate scientists still can refute the contrarian hypothesis that
greenhouse gases either do not exist or will have little effect on the global climate, even if they
cannot definitively prove their way into a lasting or incontrovertible paradigm. 

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

2
 None of the denialist citing the life of Copernicus—at least from the arguments that that I’ve looked over—portray his feelings
about the Catholic Church with any historical accuracy. 
3
Only one of my chosen examples does posit a new theory, abeit an implausible one. JV DeLong, writing for Forbes— posits
that the the sun’s might be on a natural 210 year cycle where more cosmic rays penetrate, noting that the “possibilities are
tantalizing”. This theory can be easily dismissed back to the fallow ground of crank science
 Some of these right-wing arguments carry the implicit claim that there is some loss of
validity when science makes any supplication towards social programs. Again, these views
misread Kuhn. The success of the climate change paradigm is also contingent on a critical mass
of layperson adoption. This process can be downstream from political, economic, and scientific
institutions, whose development can be explained sociologically. As Kuhn reminds us, this is a
perfectly valid process— 'the prestige of knowledge is not diminished in any way when
knowledge is viewed as social.'4 

While Kuhn, in passing, writes that social aspects are significant and that
incommensurability of paradigms depends on context, his initial writings on paradigms rarely
mention the effects of external political factors as the key discerning factor for scientific
discussions. The idea that a Kuhnian reading allows us to see where and how science is
retrofitted to a political agenda is plainly false.   

Qualification is needed. Governments do collaborate with environmental specialists,

economically powerful groups have more significant influence over political and scientific
decision-making bodies. Science has always had a political dimension: it is used and impacts the
micro-and macro-politics of daily life. Any argument that cites the shift to heliocentrism should
have some awareness of the political power of scientific ideas. However, these readings can put
the horse before the cart, portraying science as fatally and utterly downstream from social
politics. This is an incorrect reading. A paradigm is, at least to some extent, a social construct. It
is never simply a question of evidence being organized by pure reason or logical positivism.
Paradigmic structure is continuously formed on preconceptions, beliefs, and biases, such as
cultural attitudes. 

With this in mind, examine Free Net Zero's accusation aimed at climate change science:
that it’s not natural science, but a fabrication designed to bolster criticism of capitalism. If this
accusation concedes any merit to the science, it makes clear that no impact should be made on on
the economic sciences. This fabrication would mean that the theory is subservient to the more
extensive social-political activism of the left. In that case, anybody of theory and practice,
including those of the social sciences and humanities-- which often deploy processes of
interpretation and construction borrowed from science--- would also fall under the paradigm
category. Not only does this thinking stray away from a Kuhnian definition of paradigm, but it
also overdetermines the term to the brink of meaninglessness. The idea that the discovery of
climate change should stay isolated away from the social sciences has no textual basis. As Kuhn
points out, the process of transfer out of a specific area of climate science is inevitable— "Every
fundamental innovation in a scientific specialty inevitably transforms neighboring science, and,
more slowly, the worlds of the philosopher and educated layman." (230)5 

Scientists should dismiss sensationalist claims reported before proper peer review, which
will often result in bad policy decisions. They should be equally dismissive of skeptics grasping
at straws (or a Kuhnian strawman) to uphold outmoded paradigms.
4
Kuhn, Thomas. The Copernican revolution: Planetary astronomy in the development of Western thought. Vol. 16. Harvard
University Press, 1985.
5
Ibid
DOES IT FIT?

Do theories of climate change even fit within the paradigm model? While not doubting
anomalies exist, scientists and philosophers can affirmatively answer the question. We are now
seeing arguments already within the parameters of the paradigm, either in favor of or against it.
Climate change seems to have all the necessary characteristics of a paradigm: For one, the model
has assimilated a large number of individual scientific disciplines and permitted for the
continuation of "normal science," providing a veneer of cohesiveness to their pursuits, even if the
science is not settled and anomalies exist. Importantly, it opens up the opportunity for new forms
of control over nature. It has established a research framework in which individuals are funded
and employed to fill anomalies in a largely accepted theoretical construct. It provides a plausible
explanation for the data available and comports with their social sense of evaluation. Climate
change as a paradigm model, in fact, has gone through a half-decade of claims and verifications
since the 1960s—when it became clear how carbon dioxide absorbs infrared energy. 

Kuhn's thesis might be more concerned with science's sociology and history than with its
"normal science" content. However, Kuhn emphasized the importance of accuracy, consistency,
broad breadth, simplicity, and fruitfulness when evaluating scientific theories. As Kuhn reminds
us, the lesson of history is that all theories are ultimately overturned by ideas with more
generality and better predictive strengths; that is the strength of the paradigmatic view, enabling
us to separate the utility value from absolute truth claims. Philosophers of science can say that
the climate change model has successfully proposed a consolidating framework for multiple
sciences, particularly the climate sciences atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

PARADIGM EVALUATION

Both climate change proponents and denialists accuse one another of practicing a form of
ideological pseudo-science. The former makes an ideological argument around the necessity to
protect human and non-human life and the environment, prescribing a maximum level of
pollution that the earth can tolerate. The latter seems to use economic growth to determine
climate change's ontological existence. While the argument around the fabrication of climate
change is specious, the denialist identification of incommensurability of evaluation—the
economic framework pitted against the environmental—is accurate.

The climate change model is distinctive in seeing human economic activity as a part of
nature that deserves scientific research and examination, rather than just a target only for political
and economic critique. The binary clash of economic vs. environmental activity becomes a
conceptual core of the theory that ties the various natural systems (atmospheric, physical
sciences, ecological) together into a coherent model. 

Both groups make public examples of how they prioritize environmental issues. However,
their views on nature differ significantly: climate change advocates and eco-centrists value nature
intrinsically6, whereas climate change deniers view nature in instrumental and sometimes
inherent terms. When applied by the two scientific communities, these values affect the practices
and outcomes of the two paradigms and, eventually, society's policies, behavior, and beliefs.
Scientific debates, it should be noted, are not separated from these ethical, social, economic, and
political values. Private money interferes with university and other organization research goals. It
becomes evident that evaluating the scientific evidence for the paradigms alone is insufficient; it
is also valuable to identify the more significant meaning ascribed to the environment and
economy by the two paradigms.

APPLICATIONS

How might scientists navigate the implications of a climate change paradigm? One
method might involve political analysis rather than explanation or prediction. This indicates that,
despite all of science and technology's political and ethical elements, the attribution of paradigm
status stays intact to the extent that power is exercised primarily in the technological world rather
than the political realm. Yet there are areas where major ethical concerns and scope for political
decision-making arise. Anthropogenic climate change's paradigm status hangs in the balance at
the moment; there is a theoretically cohesive idea, based on real-world data, which leads to
explanation and prediction, and limited penetration of alternative energy technology into the
market, but control of the agenda is primarily in the hands of activist and political players, not led
by research, development and economic priorities. For a paradigm to hold up, it needs to affect
all areas of science, including ones of development and financial models. There is a need for a
dispassionate evaluation of the theory's predictions, primarily global warming, which is likely to
be measured in decades if precedent holds.

A paradigm shift has been a valued tool for scientist since it was introduced in The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn in 1962. His point that paradigm shifts do
not occur until the current generation of devotees exits the frame should frighten those who
believe in climate change. Society does not have the luxury of waiting for another generation to
pass before making adjustments. The collapse has already begun, and the effects will be
significantly worse if we do not change the structure and thought around financial markets as
soon as we can.  

 
 
 
 

6
That is to say that nature has intrinsic value in and of itself outside humanity. This was also a key point of scientific and social
debate in the post-copernican, pre-newtonian years.
 

Data measuring climate change is illustrated "as an anomaly creating tension between normal
science (business as usual) and the competing theories emerging as a response to the crisis
(sustainability)." Source: Fiorentino, C. (2013) 
 

Is this artifact of right-wing climate rhetoric actively making a refutation of a competing,

scientific paradigm?