One of the benefits of my long relationship with Wendy is that I can see the parallels between radical feminism and Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Both are radical movements riding upon the coattails of earlier, successful movements (liberal feminism and environmentalism, respectively). Both reject the scientific mode of thought. And both are interested in power, not truth.

Years ago, I was in the audience at a conference -- I think it was the 1997 International Conference on Prostitution -- where Wendy was on a panel with a radical feminist. When Wendy said that her objective was to know the truth about the subject under discussion, the radical, to my astonishment, accused her of cowardice. Since when, in all the history of science, has it been cowardly to stand up for the truth?

Since the last few decades. To those who believe in the social construction of reality, there is no objective truth; truth is determined by those who create the "narrative," and the goal of the activist is to construct a new narrative.

This is why radical feminists view "male science" with such disdain. They accuse science of attempting to "dominate" nature, and argue for a new "female," postmodern science, which holds that truth is found through consensus.

This is why "consensus" is such a key phrase for the AGW crowd. A true scientist knows that truth is found through verifiable, repeatable, falsifiable results -- and that one lone scientist can be right in the face of a united opposition. (See, e.g., Copernicus, Wegener, Lavoisier, Semmelweis, and Finlay, to name just a few.) But a postmodern scientist finds truth through consensus: if enough agree, then it must be true.

Don't be deceived by the frequent chants of "peer review." Peer review is a method from classical science, and a valuable -- though not infallible -- first step in evaluating new research. But as we have seen repeatedly, the AGW crowd doesn't demand peer review for research supporting their conclusions. They use peer review only to block dissenting research -- to be the gatekeepers of knowledge. Peer review is valued only to the extent that it lets them control the narrative.

And anything which aids in the construction of the new narrative is fair game. Thus the clamor for government funding, and sanctification of the U.N. (a political body) as the touchstone of science. Concealing one's data is perfectly acceptable if revealing the data would damage the cause, and likewise omitting inconvenient facts. And colluding privately to bolster the narrative is expected...as is vilification of opponents.

I always wondered what kind of science the radical feminists' vision would bring us, if anyone were so foolish as to adopt it. (They even reject mathematics!) Now, it's plain to see. And it's not pretty.