Jerome Ravetz, of Oxford University in the UK.
First I must apologise for the long delay in my making a contribution to WUWT. I confess that I was overwhelmed by the quantity and quality of the comments on my first posting; and then I was discouraged by the hostile response to my second posting. By then I was in serious arrears with other work, and so I had to give WUWT a rest. A lot has happened since then, and I am very pleased and encouraged that a spirit of dialogue has taken hold.
Now, many thanks to Willis for reminding me of the challenge to give an example of uncertain facts and high stakes. Let me try. In early 2001 there was evidence of an incipient epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease in England. It was not at all certain, how infectious it would be, or what sorts of containment measures would suffice. There were conflicting values, although these were not made clear to the public at the time. These reflected the interests of the different stakeholders, including beef exporters, other farmers, non-farm users of the countryside, and politicians.
For each of them the stakes were high. The best-known stake at risk was the status of British beef exports, as certified FMD-free; this was worth some hundreds of millions of pounds in the increased price for such beef on the world market. But there were other stakes at risk, including the pedigree herds of cattle and sheep built up by farmers, and (largest of all, as it was later realised) the possible harm to all the non-farm activities in the countryside. And what was eventually realised to be the overriding stake was the political fortunes of Tony Blair, with an impending General Election which he didn’t want to have in the midst of an epidemic.
Coming back to ‘the facts’, these were to be determined by experts; but there were two opposed groups of experts. One was the government scientists, who generally had a conservative approach to the risks and to the science. The other was a group of academics, who had developed an expertise in epidemiological modelling. They made ‘pessimistic’ assumptions about the infectivity of the disease, and so their recommendations were on the side of a very aggressive approach. This suited Tony Blair’s political agenda, and so there was a severe quarantine and very extensive slaughtering. However one might criticise the government’s actions, the decision was indeed urgent, and there was a situation of high stakes, disputed values and uncertain facts.
I believe that epidemics of any sort provide examples of PNS. The uncertainty of the facts does not prevent the stakes from being high; there are always historical precedents to go on. Perhaps it would help if we distinguished between the ‘facts’ about causes, and the ‘stakes’ about effects. Only if both causes and effects are so poorly known as to be speculative, does an apparently PNS situation collapse. Even then it is not ‘normal’ science but something else.
There is another lesson for PNS in the ‘foot and mouth’ episode. It was presented to the public as ‘normal science’: “here’s an epidemic, let’s apply the science and stop it”. The uncertainties and value-conflicts were suppressed. More to the point, the ‘extended peer community’ was nonexistent. Divisions among the scientists were kept under wraps. Damage to the rural communities was revealed piecemeal, and then as incidental to the noble effort of quarantine. Only the investigative journal Private Eye published the gory details of the exterminations.
Again, after it was all over, Private Eye published an analysis. However rough and violent debates might be on the blogosphere (as we have seen!) still that is much better than the sort of blanket of silence that has been thrown over scientific scandals in the past.
Having cleared that point to my own satisfaction, let me now engage further with the debate. One reason for my long silence is that (amidst other obligations) I have been reflecting on what all this means for my doctrines of Post-Normal Science. I believe that I already said that this was developed rather in isolation, and did not enjoy the criticism that can come from students or colleagues. So inevitably, some issues were not raised and addressed. I am now grappling with them. Here they are.
Possible corruptions of PNS. These are inevitable. After all, what prophetic message ever escaped being converted into a battleground between priests and demagogues? But I should be more clear about which corruptions are most likely to emerge in PNS, and then to analyse and warn against them. It will painful, since I will be criticising colleagues who have been well-intentioned and loyal.
Quality. On this I find myself reduced to arm-waving, that ‘we all know what Quality is’. But I can say that I am well aware that Quality is not a simple attribute, but is complex, influenced by history and context, recursive (who guards the guardians?), fundamentally a matter of morality (if the people at the top are crooked, the whole edifice of quality-assurance collapses), and of course fallible. This may seem a very insecure foundation for the sort of knowledge that we need, but it’s the best we have. And if one looks for better guarantees of truth even in Pure Science, one will be disappointed.
I should report on a problem that took some decades to solve, relating to quality-assurance. In my old book, I made the point that quality in science depends on the ethical commitments of its leaders, for there is no effective external system for assessing quality. (I spoke from my experience as a researcher in pure mathematics – perhaps a half-dozen people would be competent to assess my work). A student pointed out that this seems to contradict my calls for greater participation in science (I then called it ‘critical science’). I thought I had covered my tracks on that one, observing that in the antagonistic debating context of that sort of science, noone would be allowed to get away with shoddy work. I even gave the example of Dr. Stockman of Ibsen’s Enemy of the People (incidentally exposing how Political Correctness led Arthur Miller to make a crucial modification of the text). But the student observed that I had assumed that the antagonistic debate would itself be of high quality! Eventually I got to some sort of resolution of the problem, admitting that the quality in PNS might indeed be very low, but giving a principle for testing its procedures. This would be ‘negotiating in good faith’, which I remembered from New Deal labor legislation, and which is now a standard criterion for negotiation. This certainly doesn’t ensure quality in PNS, but it provides a criterion. And, incidentally, it could be used to characterise the sorts of discussions that are now emerging on WUWT.
There is another unsolved problem, Truth. I realise that I have a case of what I might call ‘Dawkins-itis’ in relation to Truth. Just as Prof. Dawkins, however learned and sophisticated on all other issues, comes out in spots at the mere mention of the word ‘God’, I have a similar reaction about ‘Truth’. I must work on this. It might relate to my revulsion at the dogmatic and anti-critical teaching of science that I experienced as a student, where anyone with original ideas or questions was scorned and humiliated. I happily use the terms for other Absolutes, like ‘beauty’, ‘justice’ and ‘holy’; so clearly there is something wrong in my head. Watch this space, if you are interested.
Finally, for this phase of the dialogue, I would like to defend myself against a charge that has been made by various critics. This is, that I personally and intentionally laid the foundations for the corrupted science of the CRU, by providing the justification for Steve Schneider’s perversion of scientific integrity. First, there is no record of the guilty scientists ever mentioning, or even being aware, of PNS during the crucial earlier years. Also, shoddy and corrupted science in other fields did not wait for me to come along to justify it. My influence is traced back to a single footnote by Steven Schneider, citing an essay by me in a large, expensive book, Sustainable Development of the Biosphere (ed. W.C. Clarke and R.E. Munn), (Cambridge, University Press, 1986). PNS first came into the climate picture with the quite recent essay by Mike Hulme in 2007. That was a stage in his own evolution from modeller to critic, and came long after the worst excesses at CRU had been committed. I should say that I do not dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand, since some of them are correct! But this one really does seem far-fetched.
Thanks for your patience and good will. I look forward to further exchanges.
First I must apologise for the long delay in my making a contribution to WUWT. I confess that I was overwhelmed by the quantity and quality of the comments on my first posting; and then I was discouraged by the hostile response to my second posting. By then I was in serious arrears with other work, and so I had to give WUWT a rest. A lot has happened since then, and I am very pleased and encouraged that a spirit of dialogue has taken hold.
Now, many thanks to Willis for reminding me of the challenge to give an example of uncertain facts and high stakes. Let me try. In early 2001 there was evidence of an incipient epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease in England. It was not at all certain, how infectious it would be, or what sorts of containment measures would suffice. There were conflicting values, although these were not made clear to the public at the time. These reflected the interests of the different stakeholders, including beef exporters, other farmers, non-farm users of the countryside, and politicians. For each of them the stakes were high. The best-known stake at risk was the status of British beef exports, as certified FMD-free; this was worth some hundreds of millions of pounds in the increased price for such beef on the world market. But there were other stakes at risk, including the pedigree herds of cattle and sheep built up by farmers, and (largest of all, as it was later realised) the possible harm to all the non-farm activities in the countryside. And what was eventually realised to be the overriding stake was the political fortunes of Tony Blair, with an impending General Election which he didn’t want to have in the midst of an epidemic. Coming back to ‘the facts’, these were to be determined by experts; but there were two opposed groups of experts. One was the government scientists, who generally had a conservative approach to the risks and to the science. The other was a group of academics, who had developed an expertise in epidemiological modelling. They made ‘pessimistic’ assumptions about the infectivity of the disease, and so their recommendations were on the side of a very aggressive approach. This suited Tony Blair’s political agenda, and so there was a severe quarantine and very extensive slaughtering. However one might criticise the government’s actions, the decision was indeed urgent, and there was a situation of high stakes, disputed values and uncertain facts.
I believe that epidemics of any sort provide examples of PNS. The uncertainty of the facts does not prevent the stakes from being high; there are always historical precedents to go on. Perhaps it would help if we distinguished between the ‘facts’ about causes, and the ‘stakes’ about effects. Only if both causes and effects are so poorly known as to be speculative, does an apparently PNS situation collapse. Even then it is not ‘normal’ science but something else.
There is another lesson for PNS in the ‘foot and mouth’ episode. It was presented to the public as ‘normal science’: “here’s an epidemic, let’s apply the science and stop it”. The uncertainties and value-conflicts were suppressed. More to the point, the ‘extended peer community’ was nonexistent. Divisions among the scientists were kept under wraps. Damage to the rural communities was revealed piecemeal, and then as incidental to the noble effort of quarantine. Only the investigative journal Private Eye published the gory details of the exterminations.
Again, after it was all over, Private Eye published an analysis. However rough and violent debates might be on the blogosphere (as we have seen!) still that is much better than the sort of blanket of silence that has been thrown over scientific scandals in the past.
Having cleared that point to my own satisfaction, let me now engage further with the debate. One reason for my long silence is that (amidst other obligations) I have been reflecting on what all this means for my doctrines of Post-Normal Science. I believe that I already said that this was developed rather in isolation, and did not enjoy the criticism that can come from students or colleagues. So inevitably, some issues were not raised and addressed. I am now grappling with them. Here they are.
Possible corruptions of PNS. These are inevitable. After all, what prophetic message ever escaped being converted into a battleground between priests and demagogues? But I should be more clear about which corruptions are most likely to emerge in PNS, and then to analyse and warn against them. It will painful, since I will be criticising colleagues who have been well-intentioned and loyal.
Quality. On this I find myself reduced to arm-waving, that ‘we all know what Quality is’. But I can say that I am well aware that Quality is not a simple attribute, but is complex, influenced by history and context, recursive (who guards the guardians?), fundamentally a matter of morality (if the people at the top are crooked, the whole edifice of quality-assurance collapses), and of course fallible. This may seem a very insecure foundation for the sort of knowledge that we need, but it’s the best we have. And if one looks for better guarantees of truth even in Pure Science, one will be disappointed.
I should report on a problem that took some decades to solve, relating to quality-assurance. In my old book, I made the point that quality in science depends on the ethical commitments of its leaders, for there is no effective external system for assessing quality. (I spoke from my experience as a researcher in pure mathematics – perhaps a half-dozen people would be competent to assess my work). A student pointed out that this seems to contradict my calls for greater participation in science (I then called it ‘critical science’). I thought I had covered my tracks on that one, observing that in the antagonistic debating context of that sort of science, noone would be allowed to get away with shoddy work. I even gave the example of Dr. Stockman of Ibsen’s Enemy of the People (incidentally exposing how Political Correctness led Arthur Miller to make a crucial modification of the text). But the student observed that I had assumed that the antagonistic debate would itself be of high quality! Eventually I got to some sort of resolution of the problem, admitting that the quality in PNS might indeed be very low, but giving a principle for testing its procedures. This would be ‘negotiating in good faith’, which I remembered from New Deal labor legislation, and which is now a standard criterion for negotiation. This certainly doesn’t ensure quality in PNS, but it provides a criterion. And, incidentally, it could be used to characterise the sorts of discussions that are now emerging on WUWT.
There is another unsolved problem, Truth. I realise that I have a case of what I might call ‘Dawkins-itis’ in relation to Truth. Just as Prof. Dawkins, however learned and sophisticated on all other issues, comes out in spots at the mere mention of the word ‘God’, I have a similar reaction about ‘Truth’. I must work on this. It might relate to my revulsion at the dogmatic and anti-critical teaching of science that I experienced as a student, where anyone with original ideas or questions was scorned and humiliated. I happily use the terms for other Absolutes, like ‘beauty’, ‘justice’ and ‘holy’; so clearly there is something wrong in my head. Watch this space, if you are interested.
Finally, for this phase of the dialogue, I would like to defend myself against a charge that has been made by various critics. This is, that I personally and intentionally laid the foundations for the corrupted science of the CRU, by providing the justification for Steve Schneider’s perversion of scientific integrity. First, there is no record of the guilty scientists ever mentioning, or even being aware, of PNS during the crucial earlier years. Also, shoddy and corrupted science in other fields did not wait for me to come along to justify it. My influence is traced back to a single footnote by Steven Schneider, citing an essay by me in a large, expensive book, Sustainable Development of the Biosphere (ed. W.C. Clarke and R.E. Munn), (Cambridge, University Press, 1986). PNS first came into the climate picture with the quite recent essay by Mike Hulme in 2007. That was a stage in his own evolution from modeller to critic, and came long after the worst excesses at CRU had been committed. I should say that I do not dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand, since some of them are correct! But this one really does seem far-fetched.
Thanks for your patience and good will. I look forward to further exchanges.
On reflection, I think I might agree with Scientistfortruth a bit more if think of the Van whathisname article as an instance rather than an analysis. That is, Van Whatshisname cites Ravetz, which is evidence of a climate scientist knowing about PNS. It doesn’t follow from that, however, that the manner in which he describes his peers is evidence of PNS in their behaviour.
“Buddenbrook (13:16:42) :
Let me be very blunt here. Most people on this blog are not intellectually capable of understanding Dr. Ravetz’s point, partly due to […]”
If your hypothesis is true, it is most likely that you are one of them… 😉
BETTER THAN #CLIMATEGATE! “Confidential document reveals #Obama’s US climate talk strategy” http://bit.ly/cCiisZ
For those of you who think that the FMD anology is inappropriate, I suggest that you first read “Lest we forget” over at John Brignell’s site.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/lest_we_forget.htm
Buddenbrook (13:16:42) :
I humbly suggest that…….perhaps most of us on this blog are indeed capable of understanding Dr. Ravetz’s points and merely disagree with them. And, rather, it is you that do not have the capacity to fully comprehend his errors.
Is the suggestion of you “projecting” the use of a slogan, or the quasi-intellectual postering of highly complex issues?
Buddenbrook (13:16:42) :
“not intellectually capable” is not at all appropriate in my opinion. But Thomas Kuhn’s concept of normal science (as a fairly dogmatic enterprise that does not easily question its own assumptions) is not well known to most people. Ravetz is trying to do too many things at once. It’s hard to have a debate without a common understanding of the underlying concepts.
What Dr. Ravetz describes as PNS is, in fact, religion. Karen Armstrong, in her very excellent book, ‘The History of God’ points out that every culture throughout the entire history of mankind, no matter how remote or separated from other cultures, developed religion. She says that considering the absolute ubiquity of religion in humans, that we should have been called Homo Religiousis rather than Homo Sapiens.
The human mind seems to require belief frameworks in order to function. These frameworks seem to be deeply hardwired in our brain architecture. Belief frameworks allow us to interpret abstract knowledge (a capacity seemingly missing in other animals) and to be able to act when the future is unceratin (the ability to anticipate the future in another uniquely human capacity).
Dr. Ravetz religion (PNS) shares many aspects with many primitive religions with its reliance on highly stylized rituals when “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” (otherwise known as ‘fear’). The ‘precautionary principle’ is what led many primitive religions to sacrifice humans and commit all manner of barbaric deeds. Many of the purported solutions to AGW will lead to terrible human suffering without actually effecting global average mean temperature (whatever that means). And we are already seeing calls for the ritualistic sacrifice of non-believers.
I hope we are not now heading into a very dark chapter in human evolution.
I don’t see a good analogy here. The cattle disease is well known, it has occurred numerous times over the past century (at least half century), we can even see pictures of the “bugs”, we know its incubation, symptoms, prognosis, and we know how to stop it in its tracks if we think its going to develop into a serious problem. It even only costs a few tens of billions of dollars to resolve. CAGW, on the other hand is yet to be demonstrated to be a serious condition out of control. The fact that millions of ordinary citizens have strong opinions innoculated into them by ideologues doesn’t make it an “uncertain risk” that requires us to drop everything and start applying PNS.
We have been warned of alternate impending ice ages and eras of heat waves every 40 years for over a century. What would have been the cost in development of the world economy and the damage to ecology and the planet if we had made massive interventions to prevent the ice age coming (spreading carbon black, etc) in the 1890s, the desertification of the world in the 1930s, the neo ice age in the 1970s and now an AGW that appears to be petering out on the 40 year schedule and at the same time as the science has proved to be flawed and cooked by an alliance of demogogues and socialists.
Should we invoke the precautionary principle whenever nuts like the Club of Rome and other Malthusians prognosticate pestilence and famine, darkening of the sun, running out of zinc (which we largely use to coat culverts and barn rooves). How do we choose which PNS topic we should turn our attention to. I think we already have the answer – the best thing is to do nothing until it goes away.
I was amazed to read this post Dr. Ravetz. Its incredibly thought provoking; “…the challenge to give an example of uncertain facts and high stakes”.
Perhaps its just me but the following statements also detail the “Global Warming” mess:
“…There were conflicting values,”
“…the interests of the different stakeholders,”
“…best-known stake at risk was the status of”
“…‘the facts’, these were to be determined by experts;” + “government scientists” and “academics, who had developed an expertise in epidemiological modelling.”
“…They made ‘pessimistic’ assumptions”
“…there was a situation of high stakes, disputed values and uncertain facts.”
“…presented as ‘normal’ science”
“…uncertainties and value-conflicts were suppressed.”
“…PNS”
Conclusions:
“However rough and violent debates might be on the blogosphere (as we have seen!) still that is much better than the sort of blanket of silence that has been thrown over scientific scandals in the past.”
I think you’re saying that ‘Normal’ Science no longer exists due to the influences.
“The uncertainty of the facts does not prevent the stakes from being high; there are always historical precedents to go on. Perhaps it would help if we distinguished between the ‘facts’ about causes, and the ’stakes’ about effects. Only if both causes and effects are so poorly known as to be speculative, does an apparently PNS situation collapse. Even then it is not ‘normal’ science but something else.”
The point about “Quality” is an interesting one. However, the term is essentially meaningless until defined in relation to specific situations.
“And if one looks for better guarantees of truth even in Pure Science, one will be disappointed.” I’m so surprised you didn’t use the term proof instead of truth in this statement. No one I’ve ever met is looking for or expects Truth from Science.
“…other Absolutes, like ‘beauty’, ‘justice’ and ‘holy’;” These aren’t absolutes so your comment is likely tongue-in-cheek?
PNS belongs to quasi sciences like Astrology, not climate science. Post Normal Climate Science is just another cargo cult science where belief, faith, environmental activism is the main driver, not real sciece.
Buddenbrook (13:16:42) :
“Most people on this blog are not intellectually capable of understanding Dr. Ravetz’s point”
Then why don’t you enlighten us?
Mark (13:38:03) :
“On reflection, I think I might agree with Scientistfortruth a bit more if think of the Van whathisname article as an instance rather than an analysis. That is, Van Whatshisname cites Ravetz, which is evidence of a climate scientist knowing about PNS. It doesn’t follow from that, however, that the manner in which he describes his peers is evidence of PNS in their behaviour.”
Mark, I must charitably assume that you haven’t studied this in any depth. I don’t intend to rehearse and reproduce all the evidence all over again: you can look at all my comments on the previous posts by Jerry Ravetz, and start with my introduction here:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/
You will find if you do your own research that Ravetz classified climatology as a classically post-normal science in 1990 and thereafter; that climate scientists during the 1990s recognized that their methodology was PNS, following Ravetz; that by the end of the 1990s the IPCC SAR was seen as having followed PNS principles; that the TAR and AR4 explicitly cite Ravetz as important to their methodology; that Stephen Schneider’s instructions to reviewers in the IPCC process was to follow PNS principles, after Ravetz; and that prominent climate scientists such as Mike Hulme and von Storch explicitly state that their methodologies are PNS, after Ravetz, and that the IPCC process is a classic example of PNS in action.
This is not mere opinion, or a debatable historical interpretation, but what is stated in black and white in the literature.
Buddenbrook (13:16:42) :
Let me be very blunt here. Most people on this blog are not intellectually capable of understanding Dr. Ravetz’s point, partly due to a confirmation bias that prevents them from even making the effort. This is harsh but it is true. It is painful to see people being so sure of themselves on such a flimsy, make as you go basis, reducing to slogans and quasi-intellectual postering highly complex issues that the target of their misguided slander has studied for decades.
Nah. We just have well-developed bullshit detectors. If we read Dr. Ravetz, he says that you can’t call what you say ‘true’. And when you try to psychoanalyse us, you are departing from objectivity. Oops, I see an Oozlum bird.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oozlum_bird
(No relation of Thomas Mann, are you? Sorry, we just haven’t the intellects to know about those sort of things.)
Seems relevant:
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf
Dr Ravitz is to be commended for facing the flak he’s getting here for the third time. However, this article is too long. If a concept is valid, it should be able to be explained in a page or two.
I think I can boil it down to two words: situation ethics.
Of course, situation ethics means no ethics, or maybe more precisely, the ad hoc ethics of the person holding the reins.
No wonder it appeals to big government types.
Buddenbrook (13:16:42) :
Let me be blunt. I understand precisely what Dr. Ravetz is talking about and I disagree vehemently. I also value his input and the fact that a scholar of his stature is willing to engage people like myself. You, Buddenbrook, seem willing to equate “science” with “truth”. It is not. Facts NEVER speak for themselves, they are always interpreted. Always.
From my perspective, Dr. Ravetz is confusing “science” with “reality” and confusing the roles of science, technology, politics and policy and the nature of religion. I like to think of myself, however, as teachable, and when I have an argument worthy of his response I hope he will engage me.
Sheer drivel I think. Is this Ravetz guy eating on the taxpayers dime?
Still with the PNS? I thought we settled this…
Smokey (16:01:50) :
C’mon, you are usually better than that. Lies are evil and truth is virtue: so are you gonna tell a plain girl that she is plain or that she has beautiful eyes? Eyes that a man could fall head-first into and… uh, sorry. Situational ethics. I think Dr. Ravetz is addressing this in a very nuanced form and finally missing the point…. but , again, I would not him to address me until I’d presented something more substantive. My gut reaction is not proof of anything.
Robert E. Phelan (16:35:57),
I wasn’t using the term as a complement. Marxists love situational ethics. I think it gives them license to do whatever they want. Either someone has ethics or they don’t. The situation is irrelevant.
ScientistForTruth (15:28:01) :
All well and good. Except my comments were primarily directed at the first article you cited. It is disingenuous of you to introduce new evidence and then extend my comments to them. And I maintain that the article you posted first is not evidence of PNS in anyone’s approach except the analysts. They project it [PNS] onto the behaviour of those they analyse. It might also be there, or it might not, but the article itself is not evidence of its presence.
It’s akin to seeing a bunch of people running around with the hands in the air and assuming they’re all doing it for the same reason. If you want to know, ask. Where possible I prefer to let people speak for themselves.
Smokey (11:03:01) :
Wren (10:45:00)
“There’s compelling evidence of CO2AGW. That’s why no scientific society of standing disputes it.”
The “compelling evidence” is as compelling as this compelling evidence: click
Do PNS principles tell us that something must be done immediately about postal rates, to SAVE the world? 🙂
I have not read the other posts yet. But a quick clarification on Foot and Mouth (FMD)
1. Vaccines are available
2. Infected animals can be slaughtered and eaten.
The previous out break was treated by individual vets and farmers and contained and eradicated using vaccine.
So why the huge mess in the last outbreak??? The World Trade Organization, the UN and the European Union. First thanks to new regs from the EU, many of the slaughterhouses were shut down. Animals were killed and left lying when they should have been buried in quick lime. This was because instead of being handled on a local level, Blair kicked the problem up the chain to the EU.
The real problem was the OIE guide lines
“Minimum requirements for a country/region to be declared free from disease (OIE Animal Health Code)”.
If the outbreak was treated with “stamping out” (slaughter) only (no vaccine) the country would be declared free from disease after 3 months of the last known outbreak. If vaccination was used it was TWO YEARS!!!! Source: http://www.fao.org/AG/AGAINFO/resources/documents/Vets-l-2/5engArt.txt
The handling of the FMD outbreak is a very good example of the chaos created by globalization and over regulation by those with a financial agenda who are unelected by the people effected by the regulations.
Warmwell has the private eye report at http://www.warmwell.com/footmoutheye.html
I feel Dr. Ravetz has clearly explained his concept of Post-Normal Science. The letters PNS stand for Politics, Not Science. This entire article leads directly to this conclusion.
Your analogy of disease is different than global warming. Disease is an all or none risk. And the risks of death are immediate upon the onset of the disease. Global warming is a gradual process and one that is not black and white. It is not necessarily all or none when your living space warms up. Polio, mad cow disease, typhoid, and all the other killers still scare the you know what out of me. I contracted whooping cough last May. Don’t ever remember being that sick in my life. It was not just a fraction of a degree of whooping cough. It was the full Monty. Big difference. Post normal science needs a lesson in the difference between “Man it’s hot today” versus “My child has succumbed to the plague”.