A review of the seminar 'The contrarian discourse in the blogosphere–what are blogs good for anyway?'

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.

The post sample size, 7/7764, is 0.0009 or 0.09%.

REPLY: Thanks, got distracted by getting kids to bed, fixed – Anthony

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?

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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]

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.

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.

Post normal science as I deduce it from the definitions in this blog, has nothing to do with science but with what one wants. Science in a way is boring because is involves the counting of “beans”, on the other hand if the “beans” counting fits, or leads to something, it may become (very) exciting.

thedetroiter
“Next time maybe just enjoy the naked ladies and move on.”
Would she class her own words as vitriol. I don’t. I read them as humor, in the same way as the peanut and Zoloft comments were jokes.
Analysis of only one blog, using only 0.09% of posts, unsubstantiated accusations of censorship (“deleted by the site manager”) and a desire that comments should be controlled (“there is no formal mechanism to keep the comments on track.”), shows a very narrow thought process.
A quick search on Google reveals two blogs connected to the name ‘thedetroiter’.
http://thedetroiter.wordpress.com/about/
http://screwkyoto.wordpress.com/about/
Are they perhaps connected to our Fran? Would they make a good subject for analysis?

“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. ”
She said that? She suggests stopping to discuss the science basis, and advance the discourse by changing how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.
Excuse me, I switch to German for a moment.
Franziska Hollender, wenn Sie das hier lesen:
Wir lesen Sie. Wir verstehen, was Sie bezwecken. Sie sind eine Ideologin, keine Wissenschaftlerin.
Wir werden Ihren Untergang geniessen.

As in the impartial Franziska Hollender that said;
“Climate change is not something to ‘believe’ in, it’s a fact. Why laypeople always try to argue on the science, I’ll never understand. It hasn’t been a scientific issue for quite a while, what remains is a political issue…
Is this you Ms Hollender? Comment on Jan 16?
http://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=279399835447659&id=132274126826898&_ft_a=132274126826898&_ft_tf=279399835447659&_ft_tpi=132274126826898&_ft_ti=22&_ft_fth=30866372050415eb&_ft_time_ft=1327915542&_ft_mf_objid=279399835447659

I think the analyses generally was pretty balanced and her characterisation of WUWT pretty accurate, notwithstanding Anthony’s valid points in response.
I also think it was a worthy thing to have attempted, and as good a start as could have been hoped for. I wonder what Judith Curry would make of this – this is an area of great interest to her.

Re Franziska’s undercover 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.”
This is the typical meme brought forward by German leftists, akin to US Fox News bashing. It should be pointed out that BILD brought an interview with Fritz Vahrenholt (author of Die Kalte Sonne) before Franziska’s cherished Der Spiegel (German equivalent to the NYT) did.
So, Franziska, can we get your apology now?

“The precautionary principle is important–it is essential to act sooner than later.”
That’s not a sound basis for making a decision and reveals a lack of objectivity. Should I not eat since my food may have been poisoned? Risk analysis, Cost/Benefit analysis, and Option Evaluations are sound bases for making decisions. In Emergency Management the “Do Nothing” option is always evaluated; I contend that has yet to be seriously evaluated by academia.

“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.”
There’s a lot of good commentary, color and critical, otherwise. But the passage quoted here sums up the entire quandry rather nicely. Worth noting is that a ‘scientific consensus’ is simply a paradigm qua Kuhn. That is, it is a purely philosophical position as there’s certainly no need for consensus on experiments. You simply go out and replicate them; belief is wholly unnecessary.
Which puts a rather fine point on the clip-art line “… forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again.” For we are not speaking of science as science to prove it reliability and integrity. We are speaking of Philosophy, called science for rhetorical reasons, to prove it’s reliability and integrity.
And this is why there are two different sets of conversations. In the one there is a discussion of epistemic issues and replicable experimentation. In the other there is a discussion amongst those with shared philosophical commitments about police functions to silence voices that are oppositional to those philosophical commitments. Or, to put it bluntly, one side is discussing what to do with empiricism and the other side is discussing what to do with heretics.

“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).”
Gracious sakes alive! What is her definition of “gate-keeper” and could we have some examples?
“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.”
So there’s gate-keeping and failure to gate-keep? Something must have been lost in the translation (from German?)
“I used principles of critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, Wodak). ”
Checking Wikipedia, I find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_analysis. Frankly that whole article makes no sense. Apparently she divines hidden meanings or motives in material that she deconstructs. It’s “social science” at its highest level of nonsense.

Anthony wrote:

But a search shows you commented under a fake name here on 02/07/2012 as “thedetroiter”.

Which may explain her silence now. Despite her claims of impartiality she has interfered with the subject of her study. You don’t suppose the threads she commented on were among her sample. She might have jeopardized her PhD. Wait, what am I saying, this is post-normal science we’re dealing with. But … Fake name, posing as skeptic (or at least not warmist), meaninglessly small sample size … kinda reminds me of Lewandowsky.
Still, I for one, am going to be a lot more respectful to Fraulein Hollender. Who knows, she could be one those calling the shots in that New World Order thingy we conspiro-contrarians are always talking about. [sarc]

thedetroiter
I’m bold, different and invent myself new every single day. I care a great deal about the world and one day, you’ll see me on TV making major decisions for the UN.
Joined: July 2005
I am: Female and Single
Occupation: Student
Contacts
[…]
floho Florian Hollender
http://www.flickr.com/people/detroiter/

How disappointing. Did Ms. Hollender get a stipend or travel expense reimbursement from the Education and Outreach department’s grant funds (US taxpayer money) for her little talk? Were there no examples from Watts’ posts to illustrate her points? We really shouldn’t let students speak to the public before they’ve learned something. The humiliating memory of the event will haunt them for years. It’s like asking a pre-med student to perform neurosurgery. Not really fair to the student.

“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.”
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Is this you Fran?
“In the last weeks, I have devoted my time to my studies, making a lot of progress. Sometimes I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when reading the climate change contrarian blogs that I’m using for my research, it is definitely not a study for the faint hearted. But I’m biting my way through, because ultimately, I hope that my work will contribute to understanding better how to develop an action basis for climate change through new media.
Today, many people still don’t know – or believe – that there is a scientific consensus on climate change. Also, many do feel like they need to discuss the physical science basis, which really is not at all that accessible to the general, lay public. I, for one, don’t feel comfortable discussing many of these things.
I’d much rather talk about what we can do, what the societal influences are, and the culture behind denying science, distrusting scientists and pushing this issue further and further away.”
http://thedetroiter.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/halfway-house/

“The precautionary principle is important–it is essential to act sooner than later.”
The precautionary principle should also be applied to protect the economies of large and small communities, to ensure they aren’t bankrupted by the CAGW mania. If in doubt about wrecking an economy….then don’t.
Ditto coastal planning rules relating to projected “sea-level rise”, which can drastically affect the market values of people’s beachside homes and destroy retirement savings.

We need to be informed as to what criteria to select the seven
example WUWT threads that were then sampled using
“discourse analysis”.
The basic study parameters are not described or delineated. The study
can not be replicated as described. There is no parallel random sample
of the blog’s threads to serve as a statistical control on experimental or
observer bias.

Steve (Paris) says:
September 12, 2012 at 12:33 am
What strikes me is that Franziska Hollender is from or at least lives in Vienna, the home of the celebrated coffee house/cafe society. Greats such as Von Neuman (on the science side) and Koestler (in lit. and politics) honed their thinking skills in such an enviroment.
It was also the home of Karl Popper, the father of our current understanding of the scientific method.

“…
Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them.
…”

[+emphasis]
Still other warmists think that “contrarians” should be exploded by pressing the “Red Button.”

Im so tired of dishonesty and manipulation!
Her first most obvious bias is in what she choosed to “study” and what she didnt. Just even promoting any part of the precutionary princilple reveals her bias. And you see a clear pattern how theese fake skeptics appear. The two main issues is about trust in science and politics. How do you earn it and how do yuo spend it.. When it comes to climatescience they didnt earnt it. It was given to them by politiciens and they spent what they havent earned within two seconds.
IPCC delivered an order and instead of evaluate and summarize the science it steared it by taking control ower the main institutions that was needed to be able to pull this off. NOT to let the the real uncerainties be known to people and to block dissenting voices became its main problem and challange. Oh my good how I just hate this IPCC charade..

Thanks to Ms Hollender WUWT have disclosed Ms Hollender as an example of “fake position”!
WUWT RULES!! CAGW people cant just shoot straight can they?

OT and irrelevant, but the number representing the proportion of all WUWT blog posts selected for analysis by Ms Hollender, 0.09%, is still more than twice the proportion of Earth’s atmosphere that is CO2.

And of course, even the most constructive criticism of her work, in this thread, will be taken as ‘hostility.’

I’d like to make this observation:
Some of the comments here seem unnecessarily harshly critical. An inclination towards believing the orthodoxy is not an unreasonable position given how widespread the CAGW meme is and how much support it enjoys from authoritative positions. A lot of denizens here probably was at some stage along the continuum of acceptance of the hypotheses and as they began to find out more the position shifted more towards skepticism, as the better arguments and evidence were coming from that side. That certainly was how it was for me, and for a long while I also supported the precautionary principle.
Anthony made excellent and balanced marks in response to this study and I would add one other point:
– it would be worth characterising more clearly the types of (but especially the scientific ones) objections skeptics have before commenting on the nature of the responses. A lot of vitriol and anger stems from a frustration at what skeptics believe is a neglect of scientific norms and best practise.
I think some of you guys are a little over-sensitive that the study might be biased….and it certainly is as Anthony pointed out, but not to the extent that say the Lewandowsky study was. But look at it again, a good deal of it is not unfair or unbalanced. I’d have thought polite constructive engagement would be more productive in this case.

“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.”
That’s not my experience on WUWT. I usually read the article, then point out things that I don’t like on it (even though I like other points and/or the article overall). I have never ever experienced my post being deleted even if it contained strong criticism, unlike on other blogs. And my criticism is even rarely attacked, sometimes others even agree. Although the fact that tracking discussion in the comments part is not very easy and people tend to screw up my nickname may play a role in that, too.

If this is a dissertation for a German Master’s Degree (M.Phil.), then analysisng just 7 WUWT threads seems a paltry effort.

gringojay says:
September 12, 2012 at 1:00 am
“Quote: “Adapting to climate change may require certain lifestyle changes, which she does embrace (such as recycling)….” ”
I’ve just been to her blog. She might want to consider doing her next world tour with a canoe. And stop using Apple products.
“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.”
She is mad. She talks from her high horse yet she admits climate science is too hard for her. And re the data capture, I’d bet she wouldn’t even know how to do that. She probably knows more postmodern philosophers than signal theory and here she is pontificating about data.
I’d like to apologize for this entirely useless individual from our continent that seems to have decided to go to the promised land of liberal arts, the USA. Now you have the damage.

Capell says:
September 12, 2012 at 2:10 am
If this is a dissertation for a German Master’s Degree (M.Phil.), then analysisng just 7 WUWT threads seems a paltry effort.
As we seem to be seeing in journals, the intent and usefulness of the claimed result seems to be more important than the quality of the research.
Which is actually just as sad for “them,” in the long run, as it is for us. Irony.

“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.”
A sweeping generalisation based on the way data is treated in the social sciences. In real science the data is the data and if it is biased it is soon found out, hence the existence of a strong corps of what Fran calls “contrarians”, the data is the same, but the interpretations of it different. I don’t believe in foretelling the future, even using sophisticated models, to Fran that gives me a peculiar mindset one that argues with scientists. This hierarchical thinking is rife in the social sciences, strangely, because it is populated mainly be “progressives” who consider themselves to be egalitarian. Anyone can argue with anyone else as long as they present facts and data, you don’t have to be qualified.
Finally I wonder why they’re concentrating of “contrarians”, why not ponder why there are people around who want to destroy the best conditions humans have ever had in their history – not all for sure, but eventually it will be all. To me at least, sixty years ago in the UK i lived in a house with two bedrooms upstairs one cold water tap and sink and an outside toilet. We could only afford one fire to be lit, we had mice and cockroaches and we were far from being unusual. Most people ran out of money the day before pay day and welfare just kept you from death’s door. We’ve moved from there to here because of cheap energy. So I ask myself why is the fact that there are people out there who want to take us back sixty years of no interest to the social scientists?

TinyCO2 said: “6) We’ve no time for brain shrinks who poke us with a stick from afar and then smugly make evaluations”. Bang on – though I would personally have said “brain shrinks or other ‘ologists’ …”.
However it’s good to see that WUWT is now the journal of record in the climate blogosphere and is now having post-grad studies into its discourses!

Lots of good detailed comments deconstructing a poor study influenced by this preconcieved bias…”Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them.”
Who are these some? This sentance alone shows the author to have a clear bias as she separates “science” from the “contrarians”, who, in her view, are clearly not scientist, but something science needs to fight, or they are an annoying pesky side show who should be ignored.
The fact that she claims no bias later is irrelevant to a sentance that demonstrates bias. She innsults the thirty plus thousand scientist that signed the Oregon petition by her refusal to accept that the sceptical scientist may be correct. (In her view they, “sceptical scientist” do not exist, they are either annoying, or to be fought by science) She ignores hundreds of peer review papers which demonstrate reasons to be critical of the CAGW meme. She implies bias in who gets banned without discussing actual reasons they may have got banned. She does not compare the allowance of dissenting viewpoints, virtualy 100% allowed here when on topic and following blog policy, verses the clear censorship at some pro CAGW sites. She cherry picks some personnal attacks as representive of common comments, when in fact most subjects have dozens of comments with dozens of links to disparate perspectives on most subjects.
I would love to hear this miss-educated person discuss what is, and what is not settled science in regard to CAGW. It would not surprise me at all to hear her say that …”97percent of climate scientist agree…. I would love to hear her “percautionary” thoughts on what the possible “unintended consequences” are if the draconian one world govt solutions advocated by CAGW proponents were fully enacted. I doubt the thought of doing a cost benefit analyisis ever occured to her.

I’d hate to fall victim to racial stereotyping, but there is a view that the Germanic peoples are more comfortable with a more ordered and organised society, with stronger central control, While British-based people are more at home with a laissez-faire approcah.
Perhaps it is this desire for more ordered discourse that lies behind her dislike of those pesky commentators that just refuse to stay on the set topic. Perhaps they shoud all be told to stay behind after school and learn to do the work that teacher sets the…not wander off into other things

‘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.

And some people sad disobliging things! How could they? They should just sit there and get psychoanalysed by a Masters student quietly and without complaint.
‘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.”

My advice to her is that she should (metaphorically) grow a pair before diving into the blogosphere. It is not a strongly regulated extension of the academosphere, but a (mostly) very weakly regulated addition to it. IMO it is the rough and tumble, no holds barred robust style that gives it its freshness and immediacy as a refershing alternative to the lethargic and ponderous style of academe.
And if noisy multi-faceted debate is not to her taste she should definitely avoid the Dog and Duck early on a Friday evening

How is it that “social scientists” and so many journalists don’t get that blogs like WUWT are not pedantic discourse, they’re conversations. And like all conversations, they’re full of animation, discussion, pejorative, passion and outrage. The closest social analogue is an open discussion after the presentation of a seminar, wherein the audience engages itself to discuss the presentation laid before it. The gate-keeping is there to keep the audience from becoming a mob. Could the lack of awareness be that so many blogs are a one-sided conversation, because nobody chooses to engage the blog-writer?
Ms Hollender’s thesis work for a graduate degree fails, badly. In more rigorous times, it wouldn’t even qualify for an undergraduate thesis at baccalaureate level. Personal opinion doesn’t constitute a researched thesis at any intellectual level. I’m disappointed for her. So much of an opportunity to truly learn lost, so much time wasted allowing herself to be framed by others, rather than finding the enlightment that comes with self-critical thought. This should be the goal of every university student and their teacher, not hiding in the shadows seeking only solace in peer approval.

From DirkH on September 12, 2012 at 12:13 am:

I’m a native German and I can tell you that leftism/environmentalism was virulent since my school days in the 70ies. The flawed reasoning and screaming of the leftists left me unimpressed since I was a teenager. I deeply mistrusted them; they were the obvious examples of community organizing, collectivists by nature, incapable of developing an idea on their own.

Yet when I was an American college student in the ’90’s, taking German classes and practicing by translating and reading ads in Der Spiegel, one thing I noticed has stuck with me ever since.
Three ply toilet paper.
Here in the US for institutional use like schools and businesses, we had rolls of thin paper, was actually shiny. For home use there were softer brands, although the strength wasn’t optimal, and nothing above two ply.
But in West Germany, not only did they have toilet paper with three layers, but each layer was different, one was soft, one was for strength… Toilet paper that you actually had to think about which side went where. The legendary German propensity for over-engineering and advanced technology, exemplified by that to be used once and flushed.
Der Spiegel may have been a socialist rag, but those companies advertising in that rag knew that those socialist readers appreciated their comfort, and were willing to pay for it. No Soviet-style bucket of dry leaves and corn husks for those environmentally-minded leftists!

It’s always fun to watch Gramscians like Hollender. She’s using anti-establishment revolutionary language to defend the cream of the financial cream, the coolest of the media darlings, the harshest of the tyrants.
She’s like Eugene Debs defending J.P. Morgan, or John Brown defending Jeff Davis, or Lenin defending the Czar, or Robespierre defending Louis XVI.
Simply an Establishment tool.

or this?
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, Boulder
Fran joins CSTPR from the University of Vienna, Institute for Social Studies of Science, where she is pursuing an MA in Science, Technology and Society. Fran will be collaborating with Max Boykoff on a project examining climate change and social media.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/fran_hollender/index.html

Re previous post:
“Yet when I was an American college student in the ’90′s…” should have been “the ’80’s”. Yup, I too am now old enough that I’ll drop decades.

Poor old Fran and her solemn pompous agenda laden twaddle,(jargon enriched of course, to make it seem weighty and ‘academic’)…but then you caught her out as an ‘activist’!
Couldn’t help but chuckle.
Do you think they feel shame or humiliation?
Nicely done Anthony.

In defense of Ms Hollender
As a masters student, Ms Hollender is probably young and I suspect she is un-used to the “robust” nature of our discussions. In a more formal, accademic environment, discussion tends towards the very formal and very polite. At WUWT, as with much of the web, people are less restrained and will call a spade a spade, or a fool a fool. (Note that identification of “fools” is highly subjective.
Further Ms Hollender is, I presume, a product of the modern education system. She has probably never seen contrarian or even conservative opinion except as a “bad example”.
If she is bright, time and wider exposure to the world may yet save her.
So let’s not be too hard on Ms Hollender: it isn’t entirely her fault. 🙂

The moment they use jargon they lose me…. Specially when it attempts to undermine bedrock tenets…… Post Normal science… WTF. She reckons we have moved into an era beyond what was “normal” for science.
…. That just shows her ignorance of two things.
1: That the scientific method cannot be moved away from. If you do. Then you ain’t doin’ science no more.
2: The scientific method is not being applied in many instances. So she’s looking at what is abnormal and thinking it is normal….
I hope the criticisms here do her good. She needs to view things from beyond her own egocentric orbit…;-)

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
What a load of crap. Someone needs some real life experience.

lengthy, but u have to read it to (not) believe it:
11 Sept:Bloomberg: Katherine Bagley: Climate Scientists Face Organized Harassment in U.S.
InsideClimateNews.org — The harassment faced by U.S.-based climate scientists has been well documented in the media—but not the harassment of scientists in Europe, Canada or the rest of the world.
That’s because there hasn’t been much to report…
InsideClimate News contacted scientists working on climate change in Europe, Canada and Japan and learned that virtually everyone believes that the harassment is specific to the United States. They said that it could have long-term consequences for public understanding of global warming.
“The harassment has an intimidating effect—especially on young scientists,” said Stefan Rahmstorf, head of earth system analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. Rahmstorf said that watching colleagues be harassed often deters them from speaking to media or the public about their research, which skews the debate…
Why Harassment Here and Not There?…
There are two main types of harassment in the United States—by individual skeptics, or by campaigns led by conservative groups, often bankrolled by fossil fuel industries, that seek to sow confusion on the climate issue and undermine support for carbon regulations…
The European Union, home to the world’s largest carbon market…ETC ETC ETC
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-10/climate-scientists-face-organized-harassment-in-u-s-.html

Jim south london says:
September 12, 2012 at 3:05 am
“Sir Tim Burners Lee didnt want his invention being exploited and corrupted by some Media Megalmanic Mogul.So he put a Free Patent on Data Packet Switching.He should be the man with the Nobel Peace Prize”
Data Packet Switching is way older. Tim Berners-Lee defined the protocol of the web, http (Hypertext transfer protocol) and made it free of charge.

even lengthier, and desperate for action (with taxpayers’ money):
12 Sept: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: Bayer, Nestle Lead Carbon-Cutting Effort as Climate Risk Grows
Bayer AG and Nestle SA are leading efforts to measure and cut emissions as companies increasingly view extreme weather events caused by climate change as a threat to their business, the Carbon Disclosure Project said.
About 37 percent of respondents in a survey of the 500 biggest companies reported an immediate danger to their operations from disruptions ranging from floods that shut factories in Thailand to drought that’s decimated crops in the U.S., the London-based non-profit said today in a report. That’s up from 30 percent last year and 10 percent in 2010…
Watch Live:CDP’s Global Climate Change Forum at 9 a.m. New York time on Sept. 12…
“What’s needed is government action — taxation and regulation of greenhouse gases,” said (Carbon Disclosure Project Executive Chairman Paul)Dickinson. “CO2 is a valueless pollutant, so it’s not really possible to address without government action.” …
Greenhouse pollutants are already traded in the European Union…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/bayer-nestle-lead-carbon-cutting-effort-as-climate-risk-grows.html
——————————————————————————–

Sorry, it was the wrong picture: This is the right picture.
http://i49.tinypic.com/14llymp.jpg

Some others have already stated things along these lines, but given the amount and strength of the criticisms of Ms. Hollender’s work . I would like to repeat several of the points that have been made in her defense:
(1) She was quite clear on what she was analyzing, seven individual blog postings and their following comments, not the entirety of the content of this entire website.
(2) She was also quite clear on what tools see used to make that analysis.
(3) This was a paper presented at a conference, not a published and finished paper, having undergone peer review in an established journal.
(4) She presented her paper at a conference that had another speaker who many might feel was disreputable, but using that as a standard discredit her seems to be going a little bit far. I think all of us occasionally have had strange bedfellows in our politically active spheres at times.
On the other hand, her presentation of her work had some notable weaknesses which have been well pointed out here and to which I would like to add the following:
(1) She seems to conflate the substance of the major blog articles themselves with the commenting sections that appear after those articles. It would have been instructive and helpful if she had analyzed both separately in at least a brief section of her research.
(2) She should have made at least a preliminary and superficial examination of one or two blogs on the other side of the issue and commented on how there content seems to compare to her more thorough examination of this blog.
(3) If she did not do so, then she should have included in her references the specifics of what seven blog items she had chosen for her analysis and outlined the standards that governed that choice.
Finally, I would like to comment on kadaka’s note on German toilet paper: at last we know the true story behind the mysterious disappearance of Mr. Whipple from the American airwaves! We demand his return and the entire German supply of WMD (Wipers of ‘Merican Derriers) at once or consequences will be consequent!
– MJM

Ms. Hollender, can you elaborate on why you chose to focus on the “extended peer community” portion of Post Normal Science, and chose to ignore the insertion of value judgments which is the key portion that most commenters at WUWT find objectionable?

She claims she is unbiased but uses the term ‘contrarians’? Eh?

I believe WUWT is a middle ground meaning that any Tom, Dick or Harry can turn up read the posts ask questions and get answers, the gate keeping (stupid derogatory language for a thesis) comes from what are classed as trolls due to the use of non-truths to divert or subvert the general direction of discuss on a blog post.
The main problem I see with this study is the generalisation used, where all 7 posts say about sea ice or was 1 about CO2 and another about say burning man? as the responses to each would differ but Ms Hollande assumes that all comments can be compared and pigeon hold as such.

“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.”
Leaving aside the question of the validity of this interpretation of Kuhn (and I am dubious), I do think it is safe to say such a view is exactly what places like WUWT do NOT want science to become. It would be far better to adhere to Karl Popper’s view of science and its public component:
“Two aspects of the method of the natural sciences are of importance… Together they constitute what I may term the ‘public character of scientific method’. First, there is something approaching free criticism. A scientist may offer his theory with the full conviction that it is unassailable. But this does not necessarily impress his fellow-scientists; rather it challenges them. For they know that the scientific attitude means criticizing everything, and they are little deterred even by authorities. Secondly, scientists try to avoid talking at cross-purposes. (I may remind the reader that I am speaking of the natural sciences, but a part of modern economics may be included.) They try very seriously to speak one and the same language, even if they use different mother tongues. In the natural sciences this is achieved by recognizing experience as the impartial arbiter of their controversies. When speaking of ‘experience’ I have in mind experience of a ‘public’ character, like observations, and experiments, as opposed to experience in the sense of more ‘private’ aesthetic or religious experience; and an experience is ‘public’ if everybody who takes the trouble can repeat it. In order to avoid speaking at cross-purposes, scientists try to express their theories in such a form that they can be tested, i.e. refuted (or otherwise confirmed) by such experience.
“This is what constitutes scientific objectivity. Everyone who has learned the technique of understanding and testing scientific theories can repeat the experiment and judge for himself. In spite of this, there will always be some who come to judgements which are partial, or even cranky. This cannot be helped, and it does not seriously disturb the working of the various social institutions which have been designed to further scientific objectivity and impartiality; for instance the laboratories, the scientific periodicals, the congresses. This aspect of scientific method shows what can be achieved by institutions designed to make public control possible, and by the open expression of public opinion, even if this is limited to a circle of specialists. Only political power when it is used to suppress free criticism, or when it fails to protect it, can impair the functioning of these institutions, on which all progress, scientific, technological, and political, ultimately depends.”
-Karl Popper “The Open Society and its Enemies: Vol II Hegel and Marx” (pp.217-218)
Places like WUWT are valuable precisely because they defend “free criticism” from those who would eliminate it on the grounds of “consensus.”
I really have no idea what that is so difficult for some people to understand.

So, the author/researcher believes that science should be limited to certain people and certain situations, such as uniquely limited to “peer-reviewed journals?” Favoring anything else is to be un-scientific?
This is the same elitist totalitarian propaganda where we rabble obviously must be doing things wrongly since we have opinions that differ from what has come down from on high. How very scientific.
that is ridiculous. That is why people are making fun of this woman. She is bash tardizing science in order to follow the Alinsky strategy of identifying opponents sharply, cutting them off from normal society and discourse, and so eventually neutralizing them. I give credit to Alinsky, but to jot this note I am reminded that this is pretty much what the bolsheviks did with the menscheviks.

Here is *my* take on the seminar, with a “reporter’s” slant to the story:
Thirteen people, including Franziska Hollender (Google +: https://plus.google.com/116446784794396843390/posts), attended a seminar on September 11, 2012 at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research on the Boulder campus of the University of Colorado.
Ms. Hollender recently completed her M.A. studies at the University of Vienna and is planning to pursue a PhD next spring. Her presentation centered around her M.A. thesis, which examined seven blog posts over six consecutive years by Anthony Watts on his blog, Watts Up With That.
Bobby, the woman who introduced Ms. Hollender as “Fran”, told us that Fran was taking an academic look at blogging, something few others have attempted. Bobby then asked Fran if she would take questions during her presentation, but Fran preferred to take questions at the end of her talk.
Fran started by talking about a “mediated society” that calls into question the integrity of science. One of the new media is the weblog, or blog. She noted that she also has a free blog about cooking, and mentioned that few blogs make money. She talked for some time about seven posts by Anthony Watts on WUWT. The comments on these seven posts had two notable functions: 1. Verification of the results in the posts; 2. Extended peer review. Comments on the September 1, 2012 post announcing her seminar also had these two functions.
In her thesis, Fran analyzed Anthony’s posts using critical discourse analysis in the manner of Fairclough and Wodak. She was especially interested in analyzing the power structures that were evident in the seven posts and their comment sections.
Fran’s analysis showed three major ideas that ran through all the posts:
1. Normal (Kuhnian) science is the good above all else.
2. Climate scientists are not following the scientific method and are not honoring the people who pay their bills and wages.
3. Post normal science (the science that comes *AFTER* normal, Kuhnian science, according to Ravetz and Funtowitcz) is anti-scientific.
Fran said very little more about Anthony’s seven posts. Instead she began her discussion of the 476 comments that followed Anthony’s posting of the announcement of the seminar she was now conducting.
First, she pointed out that Anthony’s policy to cull post comments of ridicule, personal attacks, and name calling was inconsistently enforced.
She said that this policy was clearly not being being carried out for the posts commenting on the WUWT announcement of her seminar – or any other comments that use tthe terms “warmist,” “alarmist,” “warmista,” or “global warming fanatic,” for example.
Next, she took umbrage at being called a “dipshit.
She objected to the terms “warmist” and “alarmist” but noted that the term “believer”, which Simon Kuper used in an article at the Financial Times, is not an accurate description of “people who are of the opinion that climate change is at least in part anthropogenic and worthy of public action” but is at a loss herself for a good one-word term.
She then discussed the authority and trustworthiness of science, asking, “Has science ever been normal?” Her answer was that it has never been normal. Scientists cannot be totally objective. They always have motives other than the mere search for knowledge and truth.
She observed that most of the people who posted comments to the WUWT announcement missed the point of her “Science AS ideology” (my emphasis) comment.
Because data collection is never unbiased, not being objective with the collection of data, Fran was reluctant to fault scientists who interpret their data in a biased way. She emphasized that observational bias is unavoidable.
She noted that even blogs have biases due to gatekeeping. Nobody sees the comments that have been snipped by moderators, so there is no objective way to determine if they were snipped deservedly. Fran pointed out that in all her studies of WUWT, few dissenting comments remained after moderation.
For example, there was a guest post on WUWT by Jerome Ravetz, in which he attempted to explain Post normal science and its enactment in the blogosphere. Fran felt that the response to Ravetz was almost entirely personal attack, and unfair personal attack at that, since clearly few of the attackers even understood what Ravetz was getting at.
Fran summed up her appreciation of WUWT and other blogs by saying that they are “Not that free. Not everyone is welcome.”
However, she emphasized that high interactivity on blogs is a plus: there are about 250 comments on each post on WUWT. The interactivity and lack of moderation mean that derogatory comments like “Offer her another Zoloft and put her by the window, she’ll enjoy the bright colours in the sunlight,” were “speech acts” that should be held accountable for their impoliteness and aggression.
“Holding science accountable is important.” People who comment on blogs that claim to be scientific should be held accountable for the aggressive speech acts that they have committed, according to Fran.
Then she noted that the vast majority of the comments that were appended to the seminar announcement descended into a discussion of Post normal science.
Fran’s appreciation of Post normal science is that it is a description of what happens after the science is done. It is not a prescription, but is a description of what people do after they understand what the normal science means in the real world. There are large issues at stake. What must we do with the knowledge we gain from science?
Thus, in Fran’s thinking Post normal science isn’t a different kind of science at all. It is the actions and words that occur *after* science is done with its objective data and replicated experiments – thus, POST (after) normal science.
Fran believes that, “blogs are underrated as media and need to be taken more seriously.” Blogs are good at noting that the role of science in society is a matter of ideology. Blogs are also good at extended peer review of the results of scientific inquiry. However, blog commentary as constructive discourse is impeded by personal attacks and ridicule, something she herself experienced in the comments to Anthony’s seminar announcement on WUWT.
Fran suggested that if blogs were willing to take out the arguing and attacks, they would become acceptable as academic and scientific discourse. She ended her presentation with the Heisenbergian statement that, “Observing a system changes the system.”
Then Fran opened the floor for questions.
One questioner mentioned that “open source” journals might be one solution to the problem of scientific peer review. Fran replied that unfortunately, scientific journals are usually put on paper, which costs money, and thus they will mostly remain read only within the scientific community, while blogs are open and are much better way to reach a wider public. Also, even though there are free journals, they are not very well promoted and thus reach fewer people from outside a discipline.
I asked Fran whether she could articulate the great divide, the thesis and antithesis of climate change.
She said that she was confused, and could not take a side. Her conviction is that humans do contribute to climate change and that it was worth it to make lifestyle changes like paying more for energy and recycling. She also mentioned that she believes in some version of the precautionary principle: we should do something if the stakes are so high that the entire planet might be affected. She said she would rather act sooner about such a situation rather than later. She added that her approach is very European. Europeans have a “give and get” tradition where they are willing to give more in taxes in order to get less poverty and environmental degradation.
Another questioner asked Fran about roles that commenters take on blogs, specifically the roles of policing the comments or the role of commenting productively. Fran noted that most people stick to some particular role, usually noting that they are stepping out of that role in a particular comment by saying something like, “I normally don’t do this, but now I will comment.” Unfortunately, the policing role generally degenerates into nothing but vicious comments, something that is “unproductive.”
Fran noted that she had to refrain from commenting on Anthony’s post about her seminar. “I wouldn’t be able to stop if I started commenting,” was the reason she gave for not participating in the commentary. Plus, the fact that doing so would have changed the object under study.
Another questioner asked if blogs could influence normal science. Fran noted that many of the guest posts on WUWT were by knowledgeable people, but people not usually publishable in normal peer reviewed journals. This might have some influence on normal science. However, some posts on WUWT were definitely not suitable for peer reviewed journals, most notably Anthony’s posts regarding Pachauri’s novel writings, an activity that has nothing to do whatsoever with Pachauri’s science or his believability as the head of the IPCC, at least in Fran’s opinion.
Thus, says Fran, “Ideas that don’t pass rigid scientific peer review get air.”
Another questioner mentioned Judy Curry’s blog and how it engages both believers and contrarians. Fran noted that Anthony has said that Judy Curry used to be a contrarian, but has “fallen off the bandwagon and retreated to warmist views.”
Fran noted that Jerome Ravetz had a guest post on WUWT, but the 500 comments on that post were almost uniformly “all bad.”
Fran said that she has “yet to find a blog where constructive discourse happens” when clashing views are encouraged.
Another questioner asked whether blogs could be the new “agora” in the Greek philosophical sense. Fran found the comment interesting.
Fran wrapped up the questioning by noting that there is still a lack of constructive discourse in the blogosphere. Among contrarians, the role of humans in climate change is still discussed, while among those who are believers, they are “not concerned about whether climate change is happening.” Believers are only concerned about what to do about it.
Bobby thanked all the participants for coming, and most everybody but a few contrarians left for classes or other activities. To the remaining few, Fran opined that she ultimately preferred the European lifestyle to that of America, but appreciates the possibilities and chances in America, having lived in different states and cities herself. She was appalled at the poverty she saw in big parts of the country and was flabbergasted that Americans could allow such blatant inhumanity to stand. She also noted that even with the higher taxes and lack of economic freedom in Europe, the lifestyle there has not changed for the worse.

The irony here is just too funny.
Professor says “discursive strategies on WUWT include ridicule, personal attacks, and name-calling.” WUWT commenters respond with ridicule, personal attacks, and name-calling.
REPLY: You should go look at some of the pro AGW blogs and then explain to me how they are different. I also have a number of taunting blog-children that have setup blogs specifically to taunt and denigrate me. Seen any of those? I’m betting Fran hasn’t either. Compared to those, WUWT is pretty civil.- Anthony

I attended the CSTPR Seminar 9/11/12. It was a pleasure to meet you, Ms. Hollender.
She provided a very broad outline of the research topic. No specifics. Others have provided specifics of the seminar and discussions. I found the topic of interest, so I will comment on the potential of the topic.
What can we learn by researching climate science blogs on how to improve the effectiveness of scientific exchange?
1. How can we increase the effectiveness of blogs in scientific discourse? Blogs are successfully engaging a diversity of people and view points, but also creating a large quantity of noise and vitriolic comments. How will we separate the wheat from the chaff (or do we need to)? Note: Google has been working on increasing the effectiveness of in-house scientific discourse with some scientific organizations.
2. Science is becoming more isolated and siloed, not engaging a diversity in perspectives. It might be okay for short term prestige and grant funding, but long term, this is detrimental to science and the public’s willingness to fund science. What can be learned from blogs for effectively engaging a diversity of perspectives?
3. Peer reviewed journals are not interactive nor accessible to the media, politicians, masses…. What can be learned from blogs/social media to improve the peer review journal process?
4. There will be significant Federal budget cuts that will impact science. Those who can best engage will best survive the severe cuts to come.
I would hope the research will study the structure of blog interactions and discourse to gain understandings in how to make them more effective for discussing differing scientific points of view. I recommend you drop any references to “contrarian” and make no references to “sides”. Study the process not the points of view. I would analyze a variety of highly used climate science topic sites.
As a scientist and engineer, I understand the desire for a comfortable, country club of scientific friends where we could pursue our interests for “the good of humanity”. Engaging a broad community with our science and justifying our research is very difficult and time consuming. Often they don’t understand. But, “trust us” no longer works in industrial nor public R&D.

I was once on RealClimate and someone wanted me to provide at least 10 peer reviewed papers countering AGW. I responded that I could not provide 10 but over 500 and pointed them to the following link which was gate-keeped i.e. sniped in full.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Another time I pointed out that alarmists are well, too alarmist. I was asked for evidence and I pointed them to the following link which was gate-keeped i.e. sniped in full.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
I have had worse experiences at the old Climate Progress where my comment was not snipped but deleted then subsequently later comments never saw the light of day.
Franziska Hollender must realise that many people here and on other sceptical blogs have been gate-keeped a lot more than here.

What to do with the contrarians? I bet dictators and tyrants have asked the same question throughout history.

I’m not sure criticizing the sample size is appropriate. It depends on what you are trying to show. For example, there are lots of airplane flights every day—but if you see one that lasts for more than 10 minutes, you are correct in concluding that airplanes sometimes fly longer than 10 minutes.
I’ve read a number of posts on this blog, and I do detect a certain sameness. So, I doubt if a large sample is required to understand much that goes on.
Interestingly, I’ve never been censored on this blog, unlike the case at RC.
Billy

“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.” Science as promulgated by Popper and others says nothing about science staying inside the community, it simply expounds and identifies the methods and philosophy as do most WUWT readers.

W. Earl Allen says:
September 12, 2012 at 7:38 am
“Thus, in Fran’s thinking Post normal science isn’t a different kind of science at all. It is the actions and words that occur *after* science is done with its objective data and replicated experiments – thus, POST (after) normal science.”
That is the stupidest thing. Hans von Storch proposed to classify climate science as Post Normal Science not because he wants to do something with it AFTER the science is done but because model-based climate science CANNOT make a prediction (models only do projections) and therefore FAILS to ever reach the yardstick for Normal Science.
Please, can someone send her a Popper or something.

Scottish Sceptic says:
September 12, 2012 at 4:42 am
Scottish Sceptic
I suppose I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. Although I agree it is certainly true that in much of academia there is an assumption that questioning CAGW is wrong. And I entirely agree that it is foolish to study the informed opinions of people she does not understand who are posting and commenting on a blog about a subject she doesn’t understand.
Although it’s a very appropriate subject for the reasons you gave I’m not brave enough to suggest to a female sociologist that she should be studying childbirth. :o)

It seems to me that the entire blogging thing and blogging about science it giving the academics some serious problems. Many are simply unable to deal with every other “mans” right to be absolutely wrong and to say so. This whole port normal stuff is more smoke and mirrors then reality. Ideologists have always attempted to influence science and philosophy. What I see here at WUWT is very broadly based collective of ideal and analysis that coves a very wide range to thought. The “turth” (what ever that is) of anything will eventually rise and be recognized even if gruelingly.

I’ve read through maybe half of the above comments and did not see any discussing this conclusion sentence.
“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.”
1) climate change discourse has not been stifled by the “contrarians”, it has been brough into the light of day! AGW proponents don’t want discourse on the science, they want blind obedience to the authoritarian establishment.
2) of course we are obsessed with discussing the science basis because the AGW crowd has made many glaring scientific errors and hidden “facts” that weaken or contradict their conclusions. That is not science, that is ideology!
3) science is not and should never be an ideology, it must be based on facts, real world data and repeatable analysis. Ideology has no place in science, or the peer review process. It is obvious that this is not true for AGW climate science today and that is what the contrarians are fighting against. When the model predictions fail to match real world data, then you must change the MODELS, not revise historical data as has been repeatedly done by the AGW crowd.
Fran, I don’t beleive you have a clue about anything you wrote. Your paper is worthless, both scientificly or socially.
Bill

Interesting. Ms. Hollender seems to feel as one of my philosophy professors did. He would never reveal his opinions on religion, etc, because he might overly influence us. I always considered that an insult to the intelligence of his students (or very narcissistic). One suspects she simply fears a verbal tirade concerning her view, no matter what side she chooses. If she really has no idea what is correct, it is always best to so state and then stop talking. Everything from that point forward either sounds evasive and/or dishonest.
There are blogs that concern skeptics and climate change that do not allow insults. I love commenting on and reading them. There are not very many comments because one has to really think through their post before presenting it on the blog. These are excellent blogs and I wish there were more of them.
As for getting off subject, I learn a lot no matter where the topic goes. I would think most readers of this blog are used to the comments meandering and are okay with that idea.

A little browsing on the CSTPR site brought up this gem from Roger A. Pielke, Jr.:
“Awareness of our ignorance—the creation of nonknowledge—is important in democracy because it opens the way for flexible policies that learn and evolve based on experience, subject to the approval of the plebiscite. Such awareness also sensitizes the public to the possibility—indeed the inevitability—of policy failure. The alternative is a “lock in” to strategies that are far more brittle and incapable of evolving.”
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2012.12.pdf

DirkH: “… but because model-based climate science CANNOT make a prediction (models only do projections) …”
This is another clip-art line. Or the linguistic performance of an avowal, if you want to stay with the zeitgeist. But a prediction and a projection are precisely the same thing. Labeling a prediction as a projection is only useful to then state that the theory was not falsified when the prediction was. Which is terribly absurd and does unsightly things to Popper’s corpse.

It seems to me that Hollender both complains about gate-keeping and then complains there isn’t enough of it. She does have a point about consistent enforcement, because the violation of policy is a subjective call by the moderator.
Still, she sampled 7 posts over a period of 7 years. Is that really a good sample? Is it representative? How were those 7 posts selected for analysis?
It’s really sad that her paper seems to be very representative of the poor quality of higher-education in America. She doesn’t understand the objections to post-normal science, she doesn’t understand the objections to not following the scientific method and she doesn’t understand why don’t we just all believe exactly what she believes.
After all, wouldn’t life be easier for the collective if we would just let ourselves be assimilated?

Is her study reproducable ? Where is the data? Who paid for it?

NOTE: To be clear, this is a reply from Franziska Hollender – Anthony
I debated with myself whether to comment here at all, but since below the personal assaults there are questions I am happy to answer, why not.
First off, to be completely honest, I had forgotten that I had once upon a time commented here, too. I apologize for making a false statement, it certainly wasn’t planned deception. However, this does not change anything, I was not in any of the sampled posts. “thedetroiter” is not a fake name, it is my screen name. Many of you have screen names, that’s how it goes on the Internet. Why Detroit? Because I was once upon a time an exchange student in Detroit. However, how is this relevant to my work? Why does it matter what I once wrote about myself years ago, who really cares about my personal life, and why SHOULD you care? I’ve noted this over and over again: while it is of no matter of all, you still try to seek out any sort of personal (not scientific) weakness you can find. I will not be put into a situation in which I have to defend my personal life which is none of your business. I am happy about constructive criticism of my work-in-progress, even the type that is worded rather crudely.
Now, to the “transcription”: it is true that I was given the opportunity to review the text before it got submitted. However, I was also pressured quite quickly by saying “If you don’t change anything right NOW, I will just post it as it is.” It was late and I don’t actually spend all of my day on the Internet, hence I chose to make the most important changes instead of having something posted that I felt missed the point. There will be an actual recording up on the CSTPR website in a while, so for those who are actually interested, you are welcome to listen for yourself.
During the talk, I actually got the feeling that many of the misunderstandings were resolved quite well, even with the “contrarian crowd”. I explicitly stated that I think blogs are an excellent medium to do extended peer-review and that WUWT works well in this regard. I also said that it is a way of holding science accountable, which also works well, looking at the site’s track record of pointing out data issues and the like. One commenter pointed out that a rather fierce mode of discussion is beneficial for sorting out “matters of truth”. I agree. There is a thin line though. Also, I was asked directly whether it is true that I was trying to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. This is true. I do not have an agenda. I am not paid for my research, I did it out of interest. I could have done anything else and yet I chose to “pick a fight with the biggest dog in the park” as someone phrased it. I also said in the talk that none of the characteristics that I found are exclusively a “contrarian” thing, just to make that clear. You are completely correct in saying that ridicule and the likes go on at other blogs, too. Sometimes even in the same way. But saying “but the others are doing that, too” doesn’t change anything about this observation HERE. I agree that a comparison would be a great next step. Nevertheless, my aim is not to hold a contest which blog has better comments or something like that. My impression was that blogs are much more important and vibrant than they are sometimes judged to be, also, they are way more complex than “less gatekeeping, more interaction (than traditional media such as newspapers)” and that they really need to be taken more seriously. I feel like I succeeded in verifying this. Next time someone asks me whether my research is relevant at all, I will just point that person to the posts about my talk.. 😉
What I also mentioned – and this wasn’t reflected in any of the reports about the talk – is what I meant saying that some people propose it is only a sideshow, etc. I used two opposing sides, namely “The contrarian discourse is an irrelevant culture war (rough quote!)” by Simon Kuper, FT, also Roger Pielke Jr.’s statement on his own blog that it is just a sideshow that does not have an effect on policy-making (see here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/12/about-those-skeptics.html) The other perspective is represented by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway, in an article called “Defeating the merchants of doubt” which you can access here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7299/full/465686a.html if you’re a suscriber to Nature or have access to a University library network. I tend to find lots of articles posted online free of charge by running the titles on Google, so you may try this if you don’t have access.
I used these two opposing opinions in order to structure my discussion. My conclusion is that BECAUSE the discourse is happening largely on blogs, it is NOT an irrelevant sideshow that should be ignored or fought. This points again to the assumption that the medium chosen is very important to the message.
Why only WUWT, why only seven posts and 1600 comments? This is not a book. It is a study conceptualized for six months of work. In my discipline I was encouraged do to an in-depth study rather than an overview of different blogs, which would simply have a different – no less important – focus. WUWT was, after a while of reading different blogs, the best choice for me: it is highly visible in both the blogosphere and tradtional media, it gets a very high amount of comments, there is lively interaction, a high volume of posts,… Why NOT WUWT? It also scores well on Technorati and other indexing tools. I believe that there is much to be done when it comes to academic research of the blogosphere and you have to start somewhere. In order to do qualitative, not quantitative work, it is less important to have large samples and more important to study the sample thouroughly. This was not content analysis. I appreciate that many people here are not familiar with discourse analysis, but it really isn’t fair to lash out at a methodology where all you know about it is a Wikipedia post. Go ahead, read a book on it, then make up your mind.
Some people were offended that I hadn’t asked permission to read their comments for my research. I am sorry you feel that way. There is a difference between participant observation and non-participant observation, and I chose to do the latter. All of the material here has been posted online and in public. I am sure everyone is aware of that. All of the 1600 comments I looked at were of course, when they were quoted, anonymized. Nothing can be traced back to a particular person. There is a wide variety of ways in which you could do this work, and there are valid arguments for all of them.
Keep in mind, too, that this was a short synopsis, not a presentation of every single aspect of the paper I wrote. I presented what I felt to be the most important findings to reinforce my statement about the importance of blogs.
I will not be responding to every single comment in this thread. Mostly because I simply do not have the time. Also because I don’t have calluses yet, I still care about those personal assaults and am certainly unwilling to engage in any discussion while I am being attacked like this. Those who are interested in a constructive and calm discussion are welcome to let me know – I, in turn, will E-Mail you and get the party started.

Video (the slideshow, not a recording of me speaking) and audio should be up within the next weeks, it takes a while to edit I guess. It will be available on sciencepolicy.colorado.edu, which is the website of CSTPR.

@John Whitman says:
September 12, 2012 at 9:51 am
A little bone to pick with you — she doesn’t understand the scientific method and is completely confounded about why we keep bringing it up. The science has been done, in her mind, what we should do about the problem is what we should be focusing on (the “post” in post-normal science).
She doesn’t even grasp that there likely isn’t any real problem to worry about.

thedetroiter says:
September 12, 2012 at 10:42 am

= = = = = =
Franziska Hollender,
I appreciate you coming here to comment.
My critique of your seminar presentation based on the attendee reports is about premises in your argumentation that are ‘a priori’ presumptions that contain invalid concepts. I articulated two such invalid premises of yours in a comment above. Would you care to continue a dialog based on that comment? I reproduce that comment here for your convenience:

John Whitman says:
September 12, 2012 at 9:51 am
First, I wish to thank W. Jackson Davis for his timely Approximate Transcript and his foresight to ask Ms. Hollender to vet it for accuracy. It gives us some info that can be used for discussion. However, I will wait to do a detailed analysis of her seminar presentation until I see the official video and/or transcript. Now I can offer only some observations of her basic argument.
Second, I thank Anthony for what seems like the 100th time for his open venue that is well moderated by his volunteers.
My general observation of Franziska Hollender’s seminar is that the fundamental premises her seminar rests on are merely several invalid presumptions. She does this ‘a priori’ without stating them explicitly as presumptions and she offers no justification of uncritically endorsing them as the basis of her argument.
She bases her argument on an unjustified and invalid premise that a person who is critical in any way of the climate scientists whom the IPCC Assessment Reports endorse (as the consensus of correct authority in climate research) means that person’s efforts are fundamentally and inherently contrary to the general scientific method and the results thereof. Evidence that she holds this invalid premise is her explicit representation of those critics as ‘contrarians’ to science per se. On that basis alone I discount her seminar presentation as explicitly subjective and intentionally biased.
Also, she bases her argument on another unjustified and invalid premise; that she has possession of some kind of special knowledge that allows her to objectively claim that no objective knowledge of the nature of reality is possible. Seriously, it is what Hollender is saying. NOTE: Ravetz’s work also claims objectivity in claiming there is no objectivity possible in ‘normal’ science.
Those two false and hidden premises are just my initial observations of Hollender’s premising problems. [Better to do shorter posts than one excessively long post.] More later.
John

Several more critiques of some other of your premises will follow on this WUWT thread.
John

The quote of “thedtroiter” where she expresses the desire to rule the peons via means of the UN has vanished from her Flickr stream.

Well with regard to the question “What to do with them, I’m sure someone can come up with a final solution.
Sarc/Godwin’s Law

more soylent green! says:
September 12, 2012 at 11:15 am
@John Whitman says:
September 12, 2012 at 9:51 am
A little bone to pick with you — she doesn’t understand the scientific method and is completely confounded about why we keep bringing it up. The science has been done, in her mind, what we should do about the problem is what we should be focusing on (the “post” in post-normal science).
She doesn’t even grasp that there likely isn’t any real problem to worry about.

= = = = = =
more soylent green!,
As I continue my premise detecting activity on her seminar’s argument I will keep your comment in mind.
In my view science is just normal application of a normal human being’s natural and normal cognitive capabilities. Anyone with an interest in accessing the necessary cold hard reasoning that is available to us all and willing to work hard can do it. I mean anyone. So I do not preclude her achievement of science understanding yet, I am still in my analysis. : )
Thanks.
John

More about Boykoff…
…looks like we’re approaching the heart of the Climate-PNS beast…
…it lives in the bowels of Boulder…
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_4100/slides_jan26.pdf
“will climate governance create an enabling environment where ‘climate capitalism’ is compatible with climate change mitigation and adaptation?
OR will carbon markets exists as isolated sites of accumulation in an economy separated from climate reduction efforts?
•‘climate capitalism’ – system where capitalist imperatives of accumulation are achieved through low carbon economic growth
•future paths? ‘cowboy climate capitalism’ vs. ‘climate Keynesianism’”
Oops! No mention of “What if the theory of CO2AGW is, ahem, WRONG”?
Impartiality rocks. I smell a Muller.