Steve Mosher reports that things got a bit bizarre at the 2010 American Geophysical Union convention in San Francisco
Guest post by Steven Mosher
At AGU today I was witness to a “new AGU.” In the very first Steven Schneider Memorial speech Michael Oppenheimer explained the variety of ways that climate scientists can engage the public and the press. There was much I can recommend in Oppenheimer’s advice. He advised scientists to understand that their expertise on particular scientific issues does not give them expertise on all issues, especially on issues that touch on policy. It is one thing to note a scientific finding that climate models predict a 3°C warming for the doubling of CO2; it is quite another thing to opine that controlling CO2 is the answer.
Oppenheimer also was clear that scientists should state their bias openly. He self identified as a “progressive” and was open about his time spent at the EDF. All in all a good presentation, especially for fans of C.P. Snow. Oppenheimer did, however, say one thing that was bizarre.
He seemed to offer the following advice:
You can’t sit on the sidelines and do nothing, because your name might show up in a climategate mail. He argued that some poor scientist had been vilified because his name was merely mentioned in a climategate mail.
I have no clue who he is talking about, but his argument came down to this. If you think you are safe as a scientist by merely staying in the lab and speaking only about science, you are wrong. Why? because some guy got vilified by just being mentioned in the mails. Let’s be clear about who was the center of the mails: Jones and Mann. As Oppenheimer stated a scientist should not think his expertise in science gives him expertise in other areas, areas like the climategate mails and areas like advising other scientists how to conduct themselves with the press and public. Personally, I’d just block mails from people who ask me to delete things.
After Oppenheimer’s speech the “new AGU” assembled a panel of authors to discuss how to communicate with the press and the public. It was a great panel. A sullen Heidi Cullen didn’t say a word. A late arriving Jim Hansen and Naomi Oreskes who suggested that scientists should study history. One member of the panel dominated the discussion, Greg Craven. If you don’t recognize the name, you might recognize the jester hat: Yes, Greg is the high school teacher who made that video about global warming. Basically Pascal’s wager.
Greg nearly always starts every long-winded rant with the phrase “I’m no expert.”
Today was no different, but it came with a twist. He did claim to be an expert in communicating to the public. He was not. I cannot begin to describe the delicious sense of irony I felt when I listened to a panel of people who have no demonstrated skill or expertise in selling messages to the public, trying to tell scientists how they should sell a message to the public. And the questioners were also entertaining. Only one, Steve Easterbrook, managed to ask a rational question. But let’s roll tape to the questions and Craven’s performance.
One of the first questions referenced Revkin’s column on the need for more Republican scientists. Oreskes, with boring predictability, said the Republican party has been anti-science since god was a kid. Epic fail, since the question was not a history question, nevertheless, she trotted out her usual gruel. Craven then launched into his act. He wasn’t an expert on psychology but he read that conservatives are irrational and prone to confirmation bias.
There are so few Republican scientists, he explained, because Republicans are irrational.
That is a quote. That is the “new AGU”.
I’ve explained before that this view of one’s opponents leads to only one end. If you believe your opponents are irrational, then at some point you contemplate using force to get them to agree. I’m not shocked to find this in a teacher. The urge to commit violence on those who refuse to learn is an occupational hazard. I taught, I know. And we should not forget who hit the red button first:
There is a lesson here. People who talk to a captive audience of students do not have expertise in talking to the public at large. You do not convince Republicans by calling them irrational. You do not assume that an audience at AGU is full of Liberals. Greg went on for some time, foaming at the mouth about getting passionate ( the first step to violent action) and I don’t think anyone on the panel thought that there might be a conservative ( much less a Libertarian who believes in global warming) in the audience . One panelist copped to being an independent. Finally, no one on the panel seemed to realize that you do not convince the unconvinced by calling them denialists.
They did seem to agree that Al Gore was not a good choice as a spokesperson and that the meme of “the science is settled” was a bad idea.
The next questioner, sensing that Craven had stolen the show, decided to ask a 10 minute “question,” This activist from Oakland spoke with fire and passion about scientists needing to speak out. Craven, interrupted her passion because she had gone on “long enough”, and tried to steal the show back. Then she complained about him cutting her off.
Thunderdome.
Cullen looked pained. The only professional was silent. At some point Craven made a promise to shut up and stop hogging the limelight. A promise he would break on nearly every subsequent question, even those questions directed specifically away from him. At one point he banged his head on the table. Rational thought at it’s best. And he scribbled furiously as other people spoke, like he was getting ready to pass a note in class.
John Mashey asked a question as forgettable as his screed on Wegman. Craven took charge again and argued the “if not now, when” argument.
Basically, it goes like this. As a scientist you have to decide at some point that enough is enough. You have to put your scientific commitment to the discipline of doubt aside and “blow past” your boundaries. Say what you feel, not what you can prove.
[ Steve Mosher: Mr. Craven has complained that this is not a direct quote of what he said. It is not a direct quote, it is,as the text indicates, a synopsis of my interpretation of his argument. ]
Rational thought at its best.
Steve Easterbrook, thankfully, asked the only intelligent question. On one hand we have Oppenheimer telling us take care when going beyond our expertise. On the other hand we have Craven, saying “blow past” your boundaries. Oppenheimer tried to paper over the difference, and Oreskes, who seemed to be shooting me looks as I sat there laughing, agreed that there was a difference between these views. Craven, breaking his promise again, read what he had been scribbling. Some sort of challenge to climate scientists that he promises to post.
By this time Hansen had joined the dais and the next questioner wanted to know if the push for action against climate change should be like the civil rights movement. Again, the scribbling genius of public communication took the microphone. And explained that he was finally going to keep his promise about shutting up. So, he handed his statement to Hansen, who dutifully read Craven’s forgettable text. Ah the humility of that. Not content with dominating the dais for an hour our expert in communicating with the public hands a note to Hansen to have Hansen read it. “Here Jim, read this for me.”
After all the PR disasters of climategate they still don’t get it. You don’t convince people by calling them irrational or ignorant. You don’t win hearts and minds by calling them denialists. You can’t scare people of faith, whether they have faith in religion or faith in human ingenuity. And you don’t pass notes in class, Greg. Maybe a dunce hat is in order for that move.
====================================
Related: Time to end your membership with the American Geophysical Union
Due to Mr. Mosher being pressed for time, this article was edited from raw form by Anthony Watts, correcting spelling, formatting, punctuation, and adding relevant links. No other changes were made.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Steve– Great report, thanks, but paste this note on your monitor: his, hers, its (no apostrophe).
“Say what you feel, not what you can prove.”
So that sums up the rationale for AGW, upon which monumental political global decisions are made, to affect all of us?
Craven would have made a great court jester for King Canute.
Sounds like the typical dreadful fair we’ve come to expect from these zealots. I’m still annoyed that people quote Oreskes like she is some great academic without an ax to grind, a cause to pump and a book to sell.
What really ticks me off about these events (as well as television interviews/debates) is that they rarely have any really knowledgeable skeptics on to completely thrash the warmists – I suppose they learned their lesson after the IQ^2 debate.
Thanx Mosh, much appreciated.
So lets see, in wanting to “communicate better” with the great unwashed, we had the following addressed?
* Climate sensitivity is ~2.5DegC, how do we convince people that that is a correct figure? NO
* Warming of the planet is bad for everybody and everything, how do we communicate this? NO
* Here is the evidence that what we are saying is correct, how do we communicate this? NO
The science must be well and truly settled, it’s just that we are too dumb to understand it. And with the aid of well organized, well funded political aparatchiks like Watts McIntyre et al, us dumb unwashed are holding back policy decisions.
Seems reasonable to me, I get that.
The policy problem with Pascal’s wager is scientifically increasing atmospheric CO2 is positive for the biosphere and for humanity. A significant negative scientific set of consequences are required to justify spending trillions of dollars to cap or roll back CO2.
The governments of the world do not have trillions of dollars to spend. There are other real problems that governments can spend money on.
The planet will warm less than 1C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. (Cloud feedback is negative rather than positive.) The biosphere expands rather than contracts when the planet is warmer. There is overall increased precipitation with increased planetary temperature. When the oceans warm there is reduced stratification and increased movement of nutrients. The paleo data supports the assertion that the biosphere expands and is more productive when the planet is warmer. Climate optimum is a planet that is 1C to 2C warmer.
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet are not going to melt if the planet warms 1C. The ocean level is going to continue to rise as it has for the last few 1000 years at 1.6 mm/year.
CO2 is at its lowest level in roughly 300 million years. Plants respond to higher CO2 levels by growing faster. Food crop yield increases with higher atmospheric CO2 levels. In addition to higher growth rates and higher yields, plants respond to higher CO2 levels by more efficient water use which reduces desertification.
Why have these facts not been include in the IPCC analysis of increased atmospheric CO2? To justify spending trillions of dollars, white lies are being created and promoted.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
“Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments
The Weizmann team found, to its surprise, that the Yatir forest is a substantial “sink” (CO2-absorbing site): its absorbing efficiency is similar to that of many of its counterparts in more fertile lands. These results were unexpected since forests in dry regions are considered to develop very slowly, if at all, and thus are not expected to soak up much carbon dioxide (the more rapidly the forest develops the more carbon dioxide it needs, since carbon dioxide drives the production of sugars). However, the Yatir forest is growing at a relatively quick pace, and is even expanding further into the desert.
Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
“The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers).
Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences. The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan.
In the eastern Sahara area of southwestern Egypt and northern Sudan, new trees—such as acacias—are flourishing, according to Stefan Kröpelin, a climate scientist at the University of Cologne’s Africa Research Unit in Germany.”
http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm
“Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses. CO2 enrichment at 2, 3 or four times natural concentration will cause plants to grow faster and improve plant will quality.
Carbon dioxide is an odorless gas and a minor constituent in the air we breathe. It comprises only .03% [ 300 parts per million, or PPM] of the atmosphere, but is virtually important to all life on this planet!
Plants are made up of about 90% carbon and water with other elements like nitrogen calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus and trace elements making up only a small percentage. Almost all the carbon in plants comes from this minor 300 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air.
The reason you will get more rapid and efficient growth and better plant quality with a higher CO2 level is because plants must absorb CO2 in combination with water, soil nutrients and sunlight which produces sugars which are vital for growth. If any of these elements are missing or low, plant growth will be retarded. When CO2 is increased to over 1000 ppm it results in higher production and plant quality.”
I hope someone videotaped this.
“After all the PR disasters of climategate they still don’t get it”
I don’t think they ever *will* get it. They seem to come from a mindset of “if you just send positive vibes, the universe will manifest the outcome you want”. So they go around constantly pretending they are winning as they lose time after time. To voice any suspicion that it might not be true brings a harsh response because you are creating negative vibes that will potentially prevent it from happening. I am serious, I know people who believe that sort of crap. They think they if they can just believe and if enough other people believe, it will come true. That is why they are so interested in polls and “consensus”, they think they can “manifest” a reality if simply enough people believe it is so. It is like living in a Peter Pan fairy tale. Some of these people are, I believe, quite insane. They have this collective psychosis that I find hard to fathom.
Craven teaches high school chemistry and physics, but doesn’t have a degree in those or any other physical sciences. He majored in Asian Studies and Computer Science at a minor liberal arts college.
Not quite the qualifications of any of my, or my son’s, science teachers. Let alone usual for the AGU.
Hey guys, you *REALLY* need to look at this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/14/BAKO1GQMTH.DTL
It was “junk science” just like the diesel regulations. Man, there are a lot of families in California that are in a world of hurt because of that junk science.
Hysterical. The Jester hat is a nice touch.
Wiki says: “The three points of the hat represent the donkey’s ears and tail worn by jesters in earlier times.”
How perfectly appropriate…. The hat of an ass.
My God… Greg Craven “wonderingmind2”? Are you freaking serious? This has to be a bad dream or something.
1. His idiotic usage of Pascal’s Wager was long ago destroyed,
Re: The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See (Video)
2. He not only claims “not to be an expert” but also “not a Constitutional scholar”,
Tea Party: For or Against the Constitution? Make Up Your Minds, Fellas. (Video)
It is clear he is no Constitutional Scholar since he is unable to even read it properly,
Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment (Video)
The AGU has become a big fat joke.
Thanks for the report, steven. The utter ineptitude and silliness depicted was suficiently humorous to bring a chuckle here and there, but it’s really not funny at all – these guys promote themselves as scientists and expect the public at large to take them seriously?
‘Say what you feel, not what you can prove.’
Be all that you can be it says on the signs, not just to the offices of Uncle Sam but on the “heavenly” entrance to the local science hippie commune as well.
You got the über propaganda politico addition to the board of director and a panel of crazed climate hippies all trying their very bestest to act irrational in an otherwise rational world, however in their reality it is, of course, always backwards monday.
What kind of ‘shrooms do they really serve at these conventions I wonder?
Sweet, Mosh.
Just looking at the photo of Greg Craven.
Have we caught James Hansen “jousting with jesters”?????
“…As a scientist you have to decide at some point that enough is enough…”
WHY?
Panto season has also started here in the UK, CO2’s behind you!!!!
crosspatch says:
“[T]hey think they can “manifest” a reality if simply enough people believe it is so. It is like living in a Peter Pan fairy tale. Some of these people are, I believe, quite insane. They have this collective psychosis that I find hard to fathom.”
This actually is part of the whole Gaea/Gaia, New Age philosophy. I’m all for positive thinking, but there’s nothing positive about predicting the end of the world and getting upset when it doesn’t happen. The notion that thoughts are things–as expressed in the very old movement called New Thought–has somehow gotten turned upside down by some of the most spiteful, pessimistic, negative people on Earth.
1Dandytroll calls them climate hippies, which I think a perfect label we should start using for them. They really are hippies, as partly evidenced by their political rants and bigotries, and are so stuck in the ’70s, they’re anachronisms. Steven Mosher doesn’t tell us, but I suspect they also smell.
Nope, they never will “get it”.
This is exactly the attitude of every politician after a poor vote result – never ever ever has a politician said simply that the voters don’t want what the politician is offering, they always resort to the “we failed to get our message across” meme.
And almost without exception, they lost because they DID get the message across.
And just a thought, could someone translate ‘Say what you feel, not what you can prove. ‘ into Latin and then Climate scientist’s could use this as there motto.
I surpose the skeptical among us could use ‘Please show your working’s’ as my maths teacher use to say to me.
So, it is not about accuracy of science but keeping the scam going.
Long story on the benefits of CO2, William. But it’s a bit one-sided. While you give all the positives, you omitted the negatives.
Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations are acidifying the oceans, which makes it harder for the creatures there to form shells and other structures. This will upset marine ecosystems and has consequences down the food chain – including us.
More CO2 leads to more warming, which will lead to (well, is already leading to) sea level rises . Not great if you live on the coast.
In other words, your story lacks balance.
PS: Informative story, Steven.
Tim says:
December 16, 2010 at 12:22 am
“Say what you feel, not what you can prove.”
So that sums up the rationale for AGW, upon which monumental political global decisions are made, to affect all of us?
Gareth says,
This is an interesting quote, and chimes with what climate camp were saying to anyone who would listen at Glastonbury last year. When I pointed out that one of their posters had no basis in reality and I was happy to share the information which I could download on my Iphone for them, the response was “Just like deniers to fall back on graphs and evidence when they lose an argument”
Is that painfully sweet or what? If this scam did not involve billions of pounds being taken from people who can ill afford it I would have laughed and blessed their cotton socks. Sadly, to many politicians seem to think the same way so the joke falls flat.
Anyone who uses the logic or structure of Pascal’s wager should simply informed completely of the original.
Then point out to them that by their own logic, they will be required to be in Church every Sunday for the rest of the mortal lives.