Guest post by W. Jackson Davis (who attended the seminar today as listed below)
The contrarian discourse in the blogosphere–what are blogs good for anyway?
Franziska Hollender, Institute for Social Studies of Science, University of Vienna CSTPR Conference Room, 1333 Grandview Avenue. Tuesday Sept. 11, 2012
Summary from CSTPR
The media serve to inform, entertain, educate and provide a basis for discussion among people. While traditional media such as print newspapers are facing a slow decline, they are being outpaced by new media that add new dimensions to public communication with interactivity being the most striking one. In the context of climate change, one question has arisen from recent events: what to do with the contrarians? Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it
is science’s responsibility to fight them. Blogs, being fairly unrestricted and highly interactive, serve as an important platform for contrarian viewpoints, and they are increasingly permeating multiple media spheres.
Using the highly ranked blog ‘Watts up with that’ as a case study, discourse analysis of seven posts including almost 1600 user comments reveals that blogs are able to unveil components and purposes of the contrarian discourse that traditional media are not. They serve as extended peer communities as put forth by post-normal science, however, blog users themselves do not see post-normal science as a desirable goal. Furthermore, avowals of distrust can be seen as linguistic performances of accountability, forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again. Finally, it is concluded that the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.
Approximate Transcript by W. Jackson Davis
(vetted for accuracy by Ms. Hollender)
Introduction
I did this study because this “mediated” society [one blanketed with diverse media] calls the integrity of science into question. A changing media landscape provides new possibilities for public discussion and participation.
Anthony Watts received an invitation to this talk and posted it online. It received 476 comments. The comment section verified my results and provided extended peer-review at the same time.
This study was done as a Master’s thesis–a small scale study by a graduate student. I sampled 7 blog posts by Anthony Watts between 2006 and 2012. I used principles of critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, Wodak). The climate blog “Watt’s Up With That” (WUWT) is ranked 118 of more than one million. WUWT gets 3 million hits per month. My results should be seen as an in-depth case study rather than overview of the field.
Discourse analysis–my primary methodology–is used to analyze prevalent power structures and views language as a social practice. provides overview of prevalent power structures.
Results
Normal science (as promulgated by Thomas Kuhn) is seen as the goal by bloggers above all else. However, their request is to provide people broadly with the means and education to evaluate and disseminate the scientific data they provide, which does not fit with the principles of normal science in which the production and review of results of inquiry stay inside the scientific community and even within a certain paradigmatic community.
Post-normal science (defined by Funtowitcz and Ravetz) as practiced by the blogger community is described as anti-scientific, yet the blog community does extended peer-review and demands the further opening of science towards the public. She believes that whether post-normal science is anti-scientific may be debatable.
Post-normal science is, in her view, a description, not a prescription. Normal science no longer fits with complex socio-economic factors that influence science.
Analyzing the seven WUWT posts, she finds discursive strategies on WUWT to include ridicule, personal attacks, and name-calling. She says this is formally discouraged on the site, but nonetheless occurs.
Narrative structures utilized on WUWT include: 1) Scientific data dissemination. 2) Critique of scientific findings. 3) Social and political implications of climate change. 4) Climate change as a political tool to challenge capitalism and impose a new model of wealth onto the American public.
Comment thread narratives include: 1) The authority and trustworthiness of science. 2) The role of science in society. These are often discussed at length.
Discussion
Science itself is not a sound action-basis and does not determine what the results of scientific inquiry imply for society. Science is not free of values and beliefs, it is not done under the exclusion of social, economic and political factors.
Data represent a social construction. Who constructs the data, and for what purpose, is relevant to the analysis. Nothing is without (observational) bias. In fact data construction is never unbiased. There is always a translation between the observed phenomenon,what we observe and what we record as the data that represent what we have observed.
The choice of media arena is crucial to the discourse. Some people say blogs, and post-normal science, is a sideshow (WUWT), irrelevant, and unimportant. However, choice of media is crucial. This is among the reasons she wanted to research it.
Gate-keeping exists implicitly and explicitly on blogs, including WUWT. Censorship is taking place. Hostile comments prohibit an open and constructive discourse–but gate-keeping is no longer imposed by the medium but by human intervention. Interactivity is high, manifest as responses to posts and subsequent responses to posters.
Not all of this is true for WUWT–there is definitely gate-keeping, however. Certain kind of comments are welcome, while others are deleted by the site manager (gate-keeper).
There are very few dissenting comments on WUWT, and if so, they are viciously attacked. Self-selection of contributors therefore takes place, under the influence of and to avoid prospective attacks on views expressed.
These are all things that happen at WUWT–it is not that free, not everyone is welcome. There is gate-keeping.
Interactivity of the WUWT blog is high. No post has less than 50 comments, and the seven posts analyzed here received up to 400 comments.
Example: The post advertising this talk was published on Sept. 1, 2012, receiving at least 476 comments. Personal attacks on Ms. Hollender were commonplace, including “This girl has a brain the size of a peanut.”
She experienced extensive misunderstanding of certain terms and notions “science as ideology, “avowals of distrust, “linguistic performances.” Plans to disrupt and intervene in her presentation were posted. One comment said to offer her another Zoloft and put her by the window, she’ll enjoy the bright colors in the sunlight.”
On the plus side, the constant questioning encompassed in blog comments holds scientists accountable. She agrees with this function, which she considers valuable. This is what she expressed as avowals of distrust, which is a term from speech-act theory and describes linguistic performances that accomplish something beyond a statement.
The example of the post announcing her talk, and the many responses, illustrate exactly some of the problems she sees with the blog. About 250 have nothing to do with her talk, and instead diverge to off-track issues–and there is no formal mechanism to keep the comments on track.
Responses
Post-normal science is a description, not a prescription. It is something that is happening, not something that should be happening. We have problems now, certain things are at stake. What comes out of science is one thing–what we do with it is another.
“Science is not an ideology, but it is not free of values and beliefs–and what role science plays in our society is a matter of ideology.”
“Blogs are an underrated media arena and need to be taken more seriously in academia–extended peer review works very well in the Blogosphere, but constructive discourse is not happening because of personal attacks and ridicule.”
Peer-review needs to be extended toward wider public, “extended peer review” using non-traditional approaches. People who are not expert in the field should engage, look at material, point out mistakes. This function works very well in the blogosphere. Often papers are reviewed like this (example of Roger Pielke on his blog). This facilitates uncovering of mistakes and inconsistencies. Constructive discourse is mixed up, however, with “noise”–personal attacks, non-constructive replies, etc.
Every scientist used to criticism–but not used to being called “ridiculous.” Blogs would work better without the non-constructive discourse.
She personally takes no position on climate change in order to remain objective in her analysis. She is unbiased, deliberately avoids sitting in either of the corners.
“Q and As”
Q: Are you personally involved [in the issue of climate change and its causes]?
A. No, she deliberately avoids taking either side on ethical grounds. She will not engage, because this would compromise her objectivity.
Q. Productive criticisms emerge from this blog–does same come out of journals? Does vitriol facilitate critical attitude even though it is harsh?
A. Yes, generates content and visibility, and so vitriol is not all bad. It can lead to constructive discourse. Also steers away many people. Also generates a lot of media attention.
Re: open source journals–they still stay within the scientific boundaries. You can access them, though it is hard if you are a lay person. Blogs a better medium to reach a wider public than just your own colleagues. Access is not the same. Blogs are superior in this regard.
Q. Have you observed any difference between Anglo sphere blog tradition and European tradition?
A. She has not read many German blogs–not as many. She does read some institutional blogs, but there is less of a divide in Germany than in US, so do not have two oppositional views on climate. Don’t have the same diversion of opinion in Europe.
Q. How can you learn and take back to journals to get them to engage a broader audience?
What can the journals do [to reap this benefit of blogs]?
A. The journal Nature Climate Change offers a possible model–it has moved to an online format, there are chat rooms. There is still a barrier to access, however. The reason is economic; when you have a print journal, have to pay for it. The access [under this business model] cannot be free to everyone. Individuals can always seek out information by going to a University library, but this is not generally done. Nature Climate Change has made a step toward broader access with online forum. Scientific journals do use a certain kind of language, but it is not journals’ responsibility to teach this to the public, it is the responsibility of each individual.
Q. Your presentation is concerned with discourse between two groups [“warmists” and “skeptics”]; how do you view the two camps and where do you sit?
A. She is still undecided on the science. She feels she cannot take either side because she does not have all the [scientific] information required. She is not a climate scientist–she is undecided. Adapting to climate change may require certain lifestyle changes, which she does embrace (such as recycling). She nonetheless believes that it is important to keep an open mind on both sides. Science never proves anything beyond doubt. Still, the question remains as to what we should do about climate change. The precautionary principle is important–it is essential to act sooner than later.
Q. Do blogs help generate new ideas and avenues of research?
A. Different roles of commenters–there is the police function, aimed at exerting power and silencing oppositional voices. Another role is productive–criticism, reinforcement, engaging information.
Q. Do you see same people serving the same role repeatedly, or do people switch roles?
A. Both. Blogs are more complex than they appear.
Q. My question is about the blogs’ influence on the relation of “normal” and “post-normal” science. Many people who post on WUWT do so because they cannot get their findings published in what they consider a biased and even corrupted climate science peer-review system. Do the blogs enable exposure of new ideas that can enter the discourse of “normal” science?
A. She only looked at Watt’s posts, and not at the guest posts that would pertain more to this question. Guest posts are written by knowledgeable people. She cannot judge whether guest posters would be able to publish what they write on WUWT. It is generally not clear whether they tried. Anyone can write anything they want–there probably are ideas that do not have peer review that can be beneficially published on blog.
Q. Do other blogs have a more balanced or “intermediate” view on climate change? I am thinking of the Judith Curry blog–is this an intermediate view on climate?
A. Judith Curry has adopted “warmist” views [views supportive of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming], in Watt’s opinion, but her blog gets many diverse comments as well. Interaction between bloggers is interesting. Most blogs have distinct viewpoints, but none encourage diverse views.
Comment from audience. Competitive discourse as on blogs may be a “purer” method of sorting out the “truth.” Aristotle used in his rhetoric. Blogs may be modern equivalent. Gecker [sp?] and Posner [sp?] at the University of Chicago have economic blog where they debate each other on economic matters using this format.
Reply. There is initiative in Europe called “deliberative democracy”–citizens have access to information and experts. It works well, although it takes a lot of effort and expense.
Comment from audience. People are generally getting very negative on blogs right now in U.S., maybe because of the political season.
Reply. She says this is part of the reason she looked at 2006-2012–she wanted to integrate over time. She wanted to control for short-term fluctuations, including seasonal and political, as a kind of “control.”
Comment from audience. There is a major misunderstanding of [your position on] blogs — you (she) is not taking a side, but rather just describing what is going on.
Reply. She agrees–she does not take sides. She is descriptive, not prescriptive. She feels very misunderstood in that regard.
Comment from audience. A book that comes to mind is Republic of Science, by Ian C. Jarvie. He edited some journal the philosophy of social science. He defends an Anglo-American norm, very much non consciously adopted by most scientists. Ravetz came out that it is the urgency of the matter that drives standards.
Reply. She replies that post-normal science does NOT promote lower standards…one of the main problems is that whether climate change is taking place, and whether anthropogenic. The other side is concerned with what to do about it after having adopted what they perceive as a scientific consensus, so the discussion between the two opposing groups is not about the same thing anymore, which makes it frustrating for both sides.
______________________________________________________________________
The representative of the host organization, CSTPR, stated that both audio and visual of this seminar will be posted on sciencepolicyColorado.edu in the next couple of weeks.
===========================================================
Comment by Anthony:
For the record, Ms. Hollender never contacted me nor asked any questions online that I am aware of. She states that she sampled seven WUWT blog posts to come to her conclusions. As of this writing, there are 7,764 published stories, which would make her sample size 7/7764 = ~ 0.0009 or .09%. I think that if I were to do a study with a sample size that small, I’d probably be laughed at.
Since she chose what posts to sample, I have no idea what if any personal bias she might have intentionally or inadvertently introduced by her choices. I do know this though, her statement of:
Interactivity of the WUWT blog is high. No post has less than 50 comments, and the seven posts analyzed here received up to 400 comments.
The “no post has less than 50 comments” is demonstrably false. There are many many posts at WUWT which have less then 50 comments, especially in the early days of 2006 and 2007. However, even recent posts such as:
Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup for 9/9/2012
…has only 7 comments, so this suggests to me that she wasn’t very careful with her sampling methods, and perhaps used personally formed opinions rather than hard data to come to that conclusion.
Also as of this writing there are 895,357 approved comments and the traffic count is at 125,607,045 views.
I don’t claim WUWT to be the perfect venue, and clearly there are many things that could be done better here, but I think the numbers speak for themselves. If there’s any other climate blog that can garner that kind of reach, please let me know. I encourage her to do an identical study on RealClimate, and note what she finds there, especially when it comes to gatekeeping.
UPDATE: Just a few minutes after posting, Fran Hollender responded in comments. Here’s that comment along with my reply:
Fran Submitted on 2012/09/11 at 9:39 pm
I wish you had consulted me on your added comments, too. In my talk I specifically said that in my sample (!), no post had less than 50 comments.
REPLY: It certainly doesn’t read that way, and you vetted the document by W. Jackson Davis before posting was done here. Not knowing which posts you sampled, I can’t confirm anything of what you talked about.
And further, how could I contact you? You’ve never revealed yourself to me or to WUWT that I am aware of….until now. But a search shows you commented under a fake name here on 02/07/2012 as “thedetroiter”.
Here’s the two comments:
===============================
thedetroiter 2012/02/07 at 4:27 am
Oh, as an addition: even here in Germany we know not to trust anything the BILD writes. Most of you won’t understand the BILDblog, but its mission is to debunk their bullshit.
Before using a BILD article as a basis for an argument, thing again. Next time maybe just enjoy the naked ladies and move on.
================================
thedetroiter Submitted on 2012/02/07 at 3:25 am
Right. Green activist, you say? Vahrenholt was a lobbyist for Shell and responsible for “improving their public image”. He now works for one of the biggest energy companies in Germany.
================================
These suggest you have biases too.
– Anthony
UPDATE2: Fran has responded to criticisms in a lengthy comment here
I wish you had consulted me on your added comments, too. In my talk I specifically said that in my sample (!), no post had less than 50 comments.
REPLY: It certainly doesn’t read that way, and you vetted the document by W. Jackson Davis before posting was done here. Not knowing which posts you sampled, I can’t confirm anything of what you talked about.
And further, how could I contact you? You’ve never revealed yourself to me or to WUWT that I am aware of….until now. But a search shows you commented under a fake name here on 02/07/2012 as “thedetroiter”.
Here’s the two comments:
===============================
thedetroiter 2012/02/07 at 4:27 am
Oh, as an addition: even here in Germany we know not to trust anything the BILD writes. Most of you won’t understand the BILDblog, but its mission is to debunk their bullshit.
Before using a BILD article as a basis for an argument, thing again. Next time maybe just enjoy the naked ladies and move on.
================================
thedetroiter Submitted on 2012/02/07 at 3:25 am
Right. Green activist, you say? Vahrenholt was a lobbyist for Shell and responsible for “improving their public image”. He now works for one of the biggest energy companies in Germany.
================================
These suggest you have biases too.
– Anthony
They don’t apply “gatekeeping” over at RealClimate–it’s more like “barndooring”. You’re lucky to get out unscathed if you have a contrary viewpoint.
“She is still undecided on the science. She feels she cannot take either side because she does not have all the [scientific] information required. She is not a climate scientist–she is undecided. Adapting to climate change may require certain lifestyle changes, which she does embrace (such as recycling). She nonetheless believes that it is important to keep an open mind on both sides. Science never proves anything beyond doubt. Still, the question remains as to what we should do about climate change. The precautionary principle is important–it is essential to act sooner than later.”
Well young lady, if in fact you are undecided (first sentence above) and you cannot take dies (second sentence above) because you are not a climate scientist (third sentence) you are undecided (third sentence) you keep an open mind on both sides (fifth sentence) how do you possibly conclude with your last sentence:
“It is essential to act sooner than later”
Perhaps you could explain how you can be both undecided and decided at the same time.
The rest of your talk and Q&A has glaring holes in it as well, just thought I would point that monster out to you. Welcome to the blogosphere. (And don’t try and pretend you didn’t read this, an ego the size of yours couldn’t possibly resist seeing what her “talk” prompted in response)
Limited analysis: worse than none. Like a blog comment, a conversation rather than a learned disccorse.
This is the whole thing of a blog. It is not an on-line debate. It is a conversation with a crowd. Within the conversation some good things come out, but also some bad. But unlike responding to a journal article, the response is immediate and public. You are supposed to respond to a bad journal article by writing a better one. but that was before a journal article, or even the Press Elease, could influence government policy.
It strikes me that criticism of the blogosphere comes from the point of view that the blogosphere is not the traditional means of information dispersal, discussion and review. It’s like saying that the problem with this cat is that it isn’t a dog.
We enter into conversations with those we identify with or feel comfortable with. Of course there is not an equal balance of views on skeptic sites. But there isn’t on warmist sites either!
And that brings a point up: how would this study have gone if it had picked a Stoat-Connolly or a RealClimate? Same points, but backwards.
The blogosphere is not perfect, and I see partisan, emotional positions on the skeptical side. Just as on the warmist, with the difference that the skeptics are trying to prove their points by self-research and effort, while the warmists do so with appeals to authority and moral rightness (which includes the use of the Precautionary Principle). A more useful Master’s thesis would have been to analyse both camps and identify the basis of positions and strategies of defense. That would have taught us something useful: where each is really coming from, and the nature of their strategy for defending one and denying the other.
She says this is part of the reason she looked at 2006-2012–she wanted to integrate over time. She wanted to control for short-term fluctuations, including seasonal and political, as a kind of “control.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wow. 7 posts from 2006 to 2012. You’ve “controlled” for seasonal, political and short-term fluctuations with just 7 posts over 6+ years? Seven? Who are you trying to fool, or did you simply flunk stats?
The post sample size, 7/7764, is 0.0009 or 0.09%.
REPLY: Thanks, got distracted by getting kids to bed, fixed – Anthony
I’ve recently been active on the “Watching The Deniers” blog after landing there due to an article by Simon Chapman about blog attacks. The original “Conversation” board in Australia was closed to the public just minutes after I made an extensive post questioning Simon’s attacks on “tobacco deniers” and was re-opened just long enough for him to add an unanswerable response to me.
The Watching site was more tolerant than “The Conversation,” although after three days, the moderator there indicated he wanted to shut down the comment thread as well after banning a number of Free Choice posters (excluding me, interestingly), and posted a new blog article titled “a-hive-of-scum-and-villainy-wtd-versus-the-smoking-trolls” in which he claimed the “tobacco apologists” were worse than “holocaust deniers.”
It would have been interesting if Ms. Hollender had applied a similar yardstick to that blog for comparison. Simply commenting about witty/snide/personal comments may say something about the general nature of blogs and Internet commenting… or it may not. It would depend a lot on which blog was being analyzed. Analyzing two on the opposite sides of a scientific issue would be a lot more informative than just analyzing one.
In a sense the British Medical Journal is a blog: their research studies are open for what they call “Rapid Responses,” (the comments) to the “main blog articles,” (the studies), with the Rapid Response Editor serving as invisible blogmeister/gatekeeper. I’ve never had one of my Responses turned down, but I *did* have one put on hold for several days while a reference (one that used “The Wayback Machine” to get around censorship) was questioned. Eventually, upon providing the evidence and proper link, the post was approved.
A professional level blog that screened out personal/attack/etc comments would be nice — except for the fact that the gatekeeping blogmeister would have to rise above the opinions and motivation that probably prompted them to start the blog in the first place. What would Anthony do here if there was suddenly an influx of highly literate and scientific posters launching strong and seemingly successful attacks against his points? What would “Watching The Deniers” do if the reverse happened over there? From what I’ve seen, both claim censorship from the other side, and my guess is that to at least SOME degree, there probably IS some censorship on both. I can only attest to the fact that I myself was only temporarily censored over there despite being in strong disagreement with the blog, but would also note that I know of at least one good and humorous posting by a Free Choicer, Frederik Eich, that *was* almost immediately permanently erased despite being not at all the sort of “violent” or “vitriolic” posting that was supposedly the cause of the clampdown.
Personally I think blogs should religiously eschew ALL censorship aside from blatant contentless ads and outright obscenity/illegality and simply handle “undesirable” posts by moving them to an “undesirable post” section with a note that such posts have been moved and can be seen by any who are interested.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Reply. She replies that post-normal science does NOT promote lower standards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh really. Well since Ravetz runs away and hides every time I challenge him on his PNS “science” perhaps you “Fran” will step up to the plate. Ravetz, from his own definition posted on this blog defines PNS as:
“Someone has asked for a definition of post-normal science. Let’s try: when facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent, the paradigm-based puzzle-solving research confined to closed sets of practitioners is not adequate. We can call this a ‘post-normal situation’. Then there must be an ‘extended peer community’, using ‘extended facts’ which include traditional research results along with open criticism, plus data from non-traditional sources, and expressions of value commitments.”
So perhaps you can step up the plate and defend Ravetz definition which falsifies itself:
If the matter is urgent, then by definition, time to make decisions is limited. The more urgent the matter is, the LESS time there is to consult an “extended peer community”. This being the case, the PNS proposition applies to a set of circumstances that does not exist.
Ravetz runs and hides when I poin this out to him “Fran” or “the detroiter” or whatever name you want to hide behind next, so how about you step up to the plate and explain this to us?
A fair amount of semantic confusion in the use of the term ‘normal’.
Normal science as defined by Kuhn, is the way most science progresses, most of the time – incremental refinement of a paradigm (theory).
For Kuhn, the opposite of ‘normal’ science was ‘new normal’ science when a new paradigm is accepted.
(from wikipedia) Post-Normal Science is a concept developed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, attempting to characterise a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for cases where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991). It is primarily applied in the context of long-term issues where there is less available information than is desired by stakeholders.
I’d add that for many people, the term ‘pot-normal’ science has a derogatory connotation, and implies something that isn’t (real) science, or refers to ‘consensual’ science.
The semantic relationship between Kuhn’s normal science and post normal science could be made clearer by replacing the term ‘post-normal science’ with ‘inter-normal science’.
Because post-normal science is really about a state of affairs when the existing normal science paradigm (GHG AGW) is generally agreed to have failed, but no new paradigm has become generally accepted.
Which makes this statement make sense.
They serve as extended peer communities as put forth by post-normal science.
Now to read the whole thing.
Q. Do blogs help generate new ideas and avenues of research?
A. Different roles of commenters–there is the police function, aimed at exerting power and silencing oppositional voices. Another role is productive–criticism, reinforcement, engaging information.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Commenters have ZERO power to silence opposition. The only people who can silence opposition are Anthony and the mods. If you actually studied the culture of this blog you would know that. But you sampled only 7 posts over 6 years and presume to know what the “roles” of various commenters are. Wow.
Question: Did it occur to you that some commenters are silenced because the positions they took on issues were torn to shreds by examination of the facts?
Seems to me another attempt by progressives to change the definition of another word. Post-normal science. I guess it’s not the consensus she alludes too, but the skeptics who ask for data and code to verify the claims made. the rest of the talk was just camoflauge, to hide her bias, which she acknowledges exists. If a scientist can’t sort the wheat from the chaff on a blog post,then they must reach her conclusion that “…constructive discourse is not happening because of personal attacks and ridicule”.
From that summary, the study sounds more objective that I expected, because suspicion is definitely aroused about the motives of someone who speaks in terms of “critical discourse analysis” and “post-normal science” selects Wattsupwiththat for study. I think many of the participants that are attracted to this site are modernists, and the modern/post-modern dimension might have been and interesting one to analyze.
It sounds like the researcher might have been distracted too much by the vitriol and attacks. Those are easy for the participants to ignore, and focus on the substantive discussion. Their relative number may not be representative of their relative importance. That may be one of the characteristics of the blog medium, that serious exchanges can be taking place amidst the noise.
I would caution her about the “precautionary principle” if she is striving to be unbiased, that is controversial itself.
I don’t think that it is fair to call this site “censored”, serious substantive disputing of positions is allowed here, while it isn’t at RealClimate. If someone is civil, interactive and not spamming with material they don’t understand and can’t defend, I doubt they will get censored.
If she is curious about the science, I would challenge her to take the position that while warming is occurring there is no model independent evidence that the net feedback to CO2 forcing is positive rather than negative, and that the model diagnostic issues are too large for them to be credible in attribution and projection of an energy imbalance this small. See if anyone can credibly challenge this assessment.
It’s a long time since I read Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Kuhn calls the period between the failure of the old paradigm and the acceptance of a new paradigm, as ‘revolutionary science’, which is what I meant by ‘inter-normal science’.
Which makes WUWT a forum for revolutionary science and entirely within the Popperian/Kuhnian view of science. No need to invoke ‘post-modern science’. Occam’s Razor and all that.
I noticed the comment on a paucity of responses to the weekly climate news roundup (on a particular date.
For the record, I read that column religiously but seldom post responses to it. But it is one of my go to sources and I hope you continue to post it. I do miss Fred Singer’s doings from time to time, but I read the weekly regularly; at least once a week.
George
Ms. Hollender is making a contribution by her lights. She has not dug very deeply to be sure; but she has concluded there are “gatekeepers” and that there is a strong bias towards “normal” science here at WUWT.
And she’s right. If you “just make stuff up” (which is effectively what “post normal science” embraces) you will tend to have the WUWT gate slammed in your face. Especially if you are rude.
Down the hill, in the little pub I frequent, a bunch of guys stand around the bar about 10:30 at night and discuss stuff. Some are righties, some from the left. Iphones supply facts, hockey is discussed (we’re in Canada, eh), and all are welcome. Unless and until a guy is rude or makes up his own facts. Do that a couple of times and you are excluded from the conversation.
The top level posts at WUWT are intelligent, fact driven and often scientifically interesting…the comments are sometimes brilliant but, more often, in the line of a pub bar chat. People either get that or they don’t. No one has to come to this particular blog; but we do because we like the company and learn a lot.
Martin Lewitt;
If she is curious about the science,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But she isn’t. She says she had no opinion, she doesn’t take sides, etc etc. Then she says we should act “now”. Odd that someone who says she has no opinion about the science nontheless presumes to know what we should do about it!
She is nothing more than a rent seeker. Despite being from Europe, she did her amazingly inept study (7 posts over 6+ years!) on American blogs. Ooops, make that a SINGLE American blog. Now she has wangled herself a trip to the United States to give a talk on her study of… and American blog. You’d think if she was really interested in the blogosphere, she’s have studied MANY blogs. If she was really interested in how blogs affect the climate debate, she’d have studied MANY climate blogs and she would have studied skeptic, warmist and lukewarmist blogs alike. What possible value could be generated by studying ONE blog in ONE country and then travel to that country to talk about it?
To get a job. That’s the value. The value is to her, and her alone. She’s trying to make a name for herself and get a position in an American institution. If she had studied any number of European blogs, and there are lots, on both sides of the issue, would it have made any sense for her to travel to America to present on them?
No, she chose a single blog, not because studying it advanced anyone’s knowledge of anything in any substantive way. She chose a single blog because it was in the US, giving her the excuse to travel to the US and get maximum exposure for her talk with minimum effort. She’s a rent seeker looking for a position at an American institution.
That’s my opinion, I am entitled to it, and if she doesn’t respond to defend herself, I expect that makes me a “policeman”? Or just pointing out the PNS?
Normal science (as promulgated by Thomas Kuhn) is seen as the goal by bloggers above all else.
Nonsense. What Thomas Kuhn described and promulgated and is described here as “Normal Science” is anathema to most sceptic bloggers. “Normal Science” is rife with cliquishness, restricted access, and adherence to dogma until “paradigm” shift is forced. What most scpetic bloggers see as the goal is normal science, AKA just plain old science. Ala Popper, not Kuhn. “Normal Science” is not desired, it is simply that “Post Normal Science” is (rightly) rejected with (appropriate) enthusiasm for the anti-science political rabbit trail that it is.
However, their request is to provide people broadly with the means and education to evaluate and disseminate the scientific data they provide, which does not fit with the principles of normal science in which the production and review of results of inquiry stay inside the scientific community and even within a certain paradigmatic community.
No. Providing people broadly with the means and education to evaluate and disseminate the scientific data they provide fits perfectly with the principles of normal science. It just doesn’t fit within “Normal Science”. The solution to the deficiences of non-scientific practice within “Normal Science” is to apply normal science in heaping spoonfuls.
Blogs are an underrated media arena and need to be taken more seriously in academia–extended peer review works very well in the Blogosphere, but constructive discourse is not happening because of personal attacks and ridicule
No. Constructive discourse is happening on the blogs. There is certainly personal attack and ridicule, and some of that is also constructive discourse. The two are not mutually exclusive.
She personally takes no position on climate change in order to remain objective in her analysis. She is unbiased, deliberately avoids sitting in either of the corners.
AKA, she is self-deceptive and/or untruthful. Her formulation of the topic demonstrates extreme bias:
In the context of climate change, one question has arisen from recent events: what to do with the contrarians? Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them.
To suggest “socially constructed language” such as that represents a cognitive position absent bias is assinine.
Reply. She agrees–she does not take sides. She is descriptive, not prescriptive. She feels very misunderstood in that regard.
Perhaps if she chose to frame her inquiry using descriptions that were not derogatory and indicative of an echo chamber mentality, she wouldn’t feel so misunderstood.
The above is constructive discourse, preparing to be dismissed out of hand as “police function” yada, yada, yada.
I regularly post at two blogs, this one and another which is populated by warmists mostly. I have not had a post declined at either. I have directly challenged a well read and well educated warmist to a debate and get no answer. He knows I am too well read to be swayed by the usual appeals to authority and diversionary references to discredited papers, refereed or not.
I concur that Real Climate is the leading ‘dark’ in terms of naked propaganda and censorship while simultaneously avoiding scientific debate. WUWT is the leading ‘light’ in the opposite regard.
FYI, Judith is not a warmist, she is a scientist first and last. That is why she started her blog. Climate Audit is another high end chat room and is an important adjunct to WUWT.
Reply. She replies that post-normal science does NOT promote lower standards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
She’s right. Since post-normal science addresses only situations which, by the definition of PNS, are urgent, the opportunity to consult with people who have no direct expertise in the matter doesn’t actually exist so the standards cannot be lower or higher.
Oh my freaking god it is possible to be a bigger idiot? This nit creates an insulted population and then uses the expected response to show they are unruly and rude. This is Walmart shopper science. That is where someone goes to a Walmart store and videotapes the least flattering patrons and then makes the case that Walmart shoppers fit the mold thus created. It is self-fulfilling. All but a moron can see the fallacy. It does not surprise me he has gotten pissy about this post. We’re not accepting his prejudices and it is a travesty we’re not. [snip]
“In the context of climate change, one question has arisen from recent events: what to do with the contrarians?”
Before I retire for the evening, I shall ask this one question of you “Fran” in the hope that you answer on the morrow.
Do you know the name of the last major European leader who characterized a certain group of people as being a problem and what to “do with” them? Do you have any idea who you are channeling?
Regardless of the accuracy of my scientific or personal views, I try to demonstrate integrity.
Integrity is something else missing from the study and the authors claims.
More social scientists investigating sceptic blogs? It seems to be the order of the day.
A more useful exercise, clearly, would have been to compare WUWT with a popular pro-AGW blog, if there is one. The degree of gatekeeping is only part of the difference; WUWT has a wonderful, light sense of humour amid the serious points, which is totally absent from the zealotry of the bash-the-sceptic efforts.
An even more useful exercise would be to look at the innumerable occasions where posts and comments on this blog have forced corrections to pro-AGW work, including post peer-reviewed papers.
“Contrarian Blogs: Do They Make a Difference?” – much better paper, imo.
Answer: yes, despite battling great adversity.
OK, that was two questions. Maybe I flunked stats too. Or maybe I’m too angry about someone having the unmitigated gall to look at 7 posts over 6+ years on a single blog and then yap on about what “to do” with people like me and it has affected my ability to count.
But that’s what PNS does to people’s brains. It substitutes opinions in the place of facts and justifies itself in the process. So by PNS standards, I only asked one question. Ask any number of “contrarians” that you wish to know what to “do with” and I’m sure they will back me up.
JJ says:
September 11, 2012 at 10:57 pm
Nonsense. What Thomas Kuhn described and promulgated and is described here as “Normal Science” is anathema to most sceptic bloggers. “Normal Science” is rife with cliquishness, restricted access, and adherence to dogma until “paradigm” shift is forced.
Agree completely and Kuhn describes how the bulk of scientists persist with ‘normal science’ in a paradigm long after it has clearly failed. In Kuhn”s terminology, ‘normal science’ can be considered a synonym for ‘failed theory’ (when the revolutionary science phase has started).
Ms Hollende needs to read the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, where she will find a very good framework for describing the current state of climate science – climate scientists persist with normal science (ie a failed theory) during the revolutionary science phase. With blogs hosting the revoutionary science.