Abstract

This paper explores the question of when the influence of values is legitimate in climate change research. Using the case of climatologist John Christy as a focal point, we examine how climate-skeptic research, which challenges the consensus on anthropogenic global warming, has been shaped by non-epistemic values. These values have influenced both his scientific decisions and his political stances, ultimately impacting U.S. climate policies. The analysis addresses the broader challenge of the "new demarcation problem"—distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate values in scientific research—and evaluates two proposed solutions: the epistemic priority and the aims approach. We argue that while the aims approach provides a more effective framework for managing the influence of values in climate science, democratic value-management risks reproducing social and geographical inequalities in scientific decision-making. To address these limitations, we propose an engaged aims approach that integrates political restrictions related to climate justice, offering a more equitable framework for managing values in climate research.