Steve Mosher reports that things got a bit bizarre at the 2010 American Geophysical Union convention in San Francisco
Guest post by Steven Mosher
At AGU today I was witness to a “new AGU.” In the very first Steven Schneider Memorial speech Michael Oppenheimer explained the variety of ways that climate scientists can engage the public and the press. There was much I can recommend in Oppenheimer’s advice. He advised scientists to understand that their expertise on particular scientific issues does not give them expertise on all issues, especially on issues that touch on policy. It is one thing to note a scientific finding that climate models predict a 3°C warming for the doubling of CO2; it is quite another thing to opine that controlling CO2 is the answer.
Oppenheimer also was clear that scientists should state their bias openly. He self identified as a “progressive” and was open about his time spent at the EDF. All in all a good presentation, especially for fans of C.P. Snow. Oppenheimer did, however, say one thing that was bizarre.
He seemed to offer the following advice:
You can’t sit on the sidelines and do nothing, because your name might show up in a climategate mail. He argued that some poor scientist had been vilified because his name was merely mentioned in a climategate mail.
I have no clue who he is talking about, but his argument came down to this. If you think you are safe as a scientist by merely staying in the lab and speaking only about science, you are wrong. Why? because some guy got vilified by just being mentioned in the mails. Let’s be clear about who was the center of the mails: Jones and Mann. As Oppenheimer stated a scientist should not think his expertise in science gives him expertise in other areas, areas like the climategate mails and areas like advising other scientists how to conduct themselves with the press and public. Personally, I’d just block mails from people who ask me to delete things.
After Oppenheimer’s speech the “new AGU” assembled a panel of authors to discuss how to communicate with the press and the public. It was a great panel. A sullen Heidi Cullen didn’t say a word. A late arriving Jim Hansen and Naomi Oreskes who suggested that scientists should study history. One member of the panel dominated the discussion, Greg Craven. If you don’t recognize the name, you might recognize the jester hat: Yes, Greg is the high school teacher who made that video about global warming. Basically Pascal’s wager.
Greg nearly always starts every long-winded rant with the phrase “I’m no expert.”
Today was no different, but it came with a twist. He did claim to be an expert in communicating to the public. He was not. I cannot begin to describe the delicious sense of irony I felt when I listened to a panel of people who have no demonstrated skill or expertise in selling messages to the public, trying to tell scientists how they should sell a message to the public. And the questioners were also entertaining. Only one, Steve Easterbrook, managed to ask a rational question. But let’s roll tape to the questions and Craven’s performance.
One of the first questions referenced Revkin’s column on the need for more Republican scientists. Oreskes, with boring predictability, said the Republican party has been anti-science since god was a kid. Epic fail, since the question was not a history question, nevertheless, she trotted out her usual gruel. Craven then launched into his act. He wasn’t an expert on psychology but he read that conservatives are irrational and prone to confirmation bias.
There are so few Republican scientists, he explained, because Republicans are irrational.
That is a quote. That is the “new AGU”.
I’ve explained before that this view of one’s opponents leads to only one end. If you believe your opponents are irrational, then at some point you contemplate using force to get them to agree. I’m not shocked to find this in a teacher. The urge to commit violence on those who refuse to learn is an occupational hazard. I taught, I know. And we should not forget who hit the red button first:
There is a lesson here. People who talk to a captive audience of students do not have expertise in talking to the public at large. You do not convince Republicans by calling them irrational. You do not assume that an audience at AGU is full of Liberals. Greg went on for some time, foaming at the mouth about getting passionate ( the first step to violent action) and I don’t think anyone on the panel thought that there might be a conservative ( much less a Libertarian who believes in global warming) in the audience . One panelist copped to being an independent. Finally, no one on the panel seemed to realize that you do not convince the unconvinced by calling them denialists.
They did seem to agree that Al Gore was not a good choice as a spokesperson and that the meme of “the science is settled” was a bad idea.
The next questioner, sensing that Craven had stolen the show, decided to ask a 10 minute “question,” This activist from Oakland spoke with fire and passion about scientists needing to speak out. Craven, interrupted her passion because she had gone on “long enough”, and tried to steal the show back. Then she complained about him cutting her off.
Thunderdome.
Cullen looked pained. The only professional was silent. At some point Craven made a promise to shut up and stop hogging the limelight. A promise he would break on nearly every subsequent question, even those questions directed specifically away from him. At one point he banged his head on the table. Rational thought at it’s best. And he scribbled furiously as other people spoke, like he was getting ready to pass a note in class.
John Mashey asked a question as forgettable as his screed on Wegman. Craven took charge again and argued the “if not now, when” argument.
Basically, it goes like this. As a scientist you have to decide at some point that enough is enough. You have to put your scientific commitment to the discipline of doubt aside and “blow past” your boundaries. Say what you feel, not what you can prove.
[ Steve Mosher: Mr. Craven has complained that this is not a direct quote of what he said. It is not a direct quote, it is,as the text indicates, a synopsis of my interpretation of his argument. ]
Rational thought at its best.
Steve Easterbrook, thankfully, asked the only intelligent question. On one hand we have Oppenheimer telling us take care when going beyond our expertise. On the other hand we have Craven, saying “blow past” your boundaries. Oppenheimer tried to paper over the difference, and Oreskes, who seemed to be shooting me looks as I sat there laughing, agreed that there was a difference between these views. Craven, breaking his promise again, read what he had been scribbling. Some sort of challenge to climate scientists that he promises to post.
By this time Hansen had joined the dais and the next questioner wanted to know if the push for action against climate change should be like the civil rights movement. Again, the scribbling genius of public communication took the microphone. And explained that he was finally going to keep his promise about shutting up. So, he handed his statement to Hansen, who dutifully read Craven’s forgettable text. Ah the humility of that. Not content with dominating the dais for an hour our expert in communicating with the public hands a note to Hansen to have Hansen read it. “Here Jim, read this for me.”
After all the PR disasters of climategate they still don’t get it. You don’t convince people by calling them irrational or ignorant. You don’t win hearts and minds by calling them denialists. You can’t scare people of faith, whether they have faith in religion or faith in human ingenuity. And you don’t pass notes in class, Greg. Maybe a dunce hat is in order for that move.
====================================
Related: Time to end your membership with the American Geophysical Union
Due to Mr. Mosher being pressed for time, this article was edited from raw form by Anthony Watts, correcting spelling, formatting, punctuation, and adding relevant links. No other changes were made.
It is time for a play on the organization’s acronym. They should be called the Silver Union. They’ll betray their scientific integrity for thirty pieces, paid by the priests of the (C)AGW Temple, and complete the deal with a sustainable kiss.
@Joe Kirklin Bastardi
‘Can I get a big amen on this, brothers and sisters’
Even though I’m not religious, or agree with the main point, I’ll still say amen to that.
I’m not sure anything about the climate will be resolved in the next 30 years. Two point of fact I like to point out. First look at the past 30 years, and now these past 30 years even include that mysterious famous “very scientific” cycle of 30 years, so we got 30 years of sat data, but still, have we resolved anything or has it just gotten worse. Second I always remember that sometime fact doesn’t always win as for instance with electricity which you calculate as flowing one way but fact is it actually flows the other way but apparently at one time some “great” electroengineering minds decided to stick with how “everyone” already calculated, alas it would’ve been to hard, they appear to have reasoned, to change the “fact”. Some crap just stick for ages.
Just a little chemistry refresher on CO2 reaction in ocean water. 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/oh-snap-co2-causes-ocean-critters-to-build-more-shells/
Sigh, will science ever recover from this?
Craven? Really? If he’s representative of the Climate Change community, the discussion is over. The quote advocating scientists state what the feel and not what they can prove is worthy to keep handy.
Joe Bastardi
AMEN, Brother !
“Say what you feel, not what you can prove.”
Stalin would be proud of Craven.
Pascal’s wager has to do with living one’s life as if there were a God, whether one believes or not. There is no downside. If right, one goes to the kingdom of heaven; if wrong, there was no harm and nothing was lost.
While CAGW is a religion, its adherents do not walk the walk. Unless they quit adding to their concept of climate damage, by discontinuing the use of fossil-fueled transportation for example, they are causing harm. Second, their ideal policies would cause billions of dollars whether they are right or not. Even if they are right, they are fiscally irresponsible in cost/benifit. Pascal’s wager does not fit.
Sense Seeker says:
December 16, 2010 at 3:28 am
Long story on the benefits of CO2, William. But it’s a bit one-sided. While you give all the positives, you omitted the negatives.
Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations are acidifying the oceans, which makes it harder for the creatures there to form shells and other structures. This will upset marine ecosystems and has consequences down the food chain – including us.
So, please tell me how the Cnidarians, Brachiopods, and Molluscs managed to survive since Cambrian times when CO2 concentrations were as high as 7,000 ppmv. Even as recently as the Jurassic and Cretaceous, CO2 concentrations have been as high as 2,500 ppmv and there was no ill effect on the marine invertebrates. As I asked before, how did these creatures survive?
(My guess is that Mr. SenseSeeker is a drive-by poster.)
Anthony,
You should urge Craven to “blow past” his own boundaries and drop by here for an open and frank discussion.
Unless his advise is for others to do as he says not as he does Craven should be eager to engage WUWT.
His recommendation is exactly what many skeptics have been suggesting for along time.
For the Team to get out of their comfort zones of control and take on the skeptics in healthy public debate.
Perhaps a WUWT banner welcoming Craven to use his own advise is in order.
Then again he may have been one of the trolls here all along.
In my own experience, this IS the major difference between left and right:
Left feels. Right thinks.
I feel rich today, so I’m going to go out and spend what’s in my checking account. I better not feel rich too often.
I feel that all I have to do is desire that application to be a certain way, and it will. No no, I don’t need to actually do all the coding work required, because I FEEL that it should just work.
I feel that the inequity of rich and poor countries is a terrible problem, therefore I want, without thinking, to send them money and aid. That will fix everything, because then they will live like us, even though I constantly rant and rave about what we are (capitalism and consumerism… horrors!)
When Clinton was president, I never EVER heard the same kind of emotion-based bashing and hatred that I did when Bush was president. Even though the numbers were about equal. Why? Because the right is more interested in planning the replacement and working on issues, while the left is busy emoting in public.
Apparently, statements like “Say what you feel, not what you can prove” blow completely past the logic-detector for some people. The sheer STUPIDITY of such a statement is mind boggling…
The classic criticism of Pascal’s Wager (or its descendent, the precautionary principle) is that it could easily lead one to believe in the wrong god, since the wager assigns no probabilistic benefit to any specific god. In other words, if I accept that I should simply believe in god because living as if god exists has no down side *and* I happen to believe that Charles Manson is god, well … you see the problem.
This is the exact problem with the precautionary principle. If you assume that there is no down side to blindly believing that global surface temperatures are a strong function of anthropogenic CO2 (and therefore we should blindly do ‘something’ radical to drastically reduce CO2 emissions), then you do not understand the negative societal consequences of your false god. Its not a free lunch.
It seems to me that many of the people, who class themselves as scientists and who pontificate on Climate Change, AGW, etc. , have never progressed beyond the “Information” stage of the hierarchy leading to Wisdom. Which is (as a reminder) Data->Information->Knowledge->Understanding->Wisdom. As a result we are besieged with comments and arguments replete with mountains of meaningless Data and Information and occasional tidbits of Knowledge, but an utter absence of Understanding or Wisdom. Quite sad, really, and I believe it is the underlying fault line which leads to the appeals to authority and implied religious/moral connotations of their arguments.
From Craven’s site, about his own argument:
“Turns out, the reasoning in that video has a hole in it large enough to drive a Hummer through…”
Yes. Actually, multiple holes. We are driving Hummers through those holes regularly, thank you very much.
“It is one thing to note a scientific finding that climate models predict a 3°C warming for the doubling of CO2; . . .
After Oppenheimer’s speech the “new AGU” assembled a panel of authors to discuss how to communicate with the press and the public. ”
Okay, I’m ready to have them communicate as to exactly how the human component of CO2 is going to be increased fast enough to, on its own, cause a doubling in the atmosphere. How much faster can carbon based oil, gas, and so on be used? How do they plan on negating supply, demand, and cost relationships? How do we know the rise in CO2 will continue far into the future, rather than plateau? What else might happen: for example, will natural processes sequester none, some, or most of it? Explain how CO2 actually defies physics and continues to raise atmospheric temperature beyond known scientific facts?
Request that they please show their work.
—————————————————————
Keeping communication clear: A change in temperature should be stated as, say ‘three Celsius degrees’ or 3C° ; an actual temperature reading is stated as ‘three degrees Celsius’ or 3°C.
You said a mouthful! But it’s worse than that: they’re liable to make false (superficial,) connections and to cling to those linkages as though they were holy, just because they (and others of their ilk) propounded them.
(My guess is that Mr. SenseSeeker is a drive-by poster.)
He haunts Steve Goddards Blog. He makes less sense there.
If I was in a position to do so, and I took it in mind to do as much damage to the AGW propaganda machine as I possibly could in under 90 minutes, I would conspire to have the AGU hold this very session and counsel all those in attendance to listen carefully and follow all the advice they are about to hear.
R. de Haan says:
December 16, 2010 at 6:06 am
Great piece but what is there not to understand?
[…]
This new idiocracy of course is noting more but yet another attempt to shackle humanity under socialist rule and like all previous regimes it will fail.
But the price, the price to pay will be of epic proportions.
So we better stop it before the green boots start marching.
Well said ‘dittos’ to you, R.. There is nothing funny about these malignant Clowns, and they are not kidding. I consider them, not CO2, to be the very virulent disease agent we should be addressing as if our lives depended upon it. Really, by now just “what is there to not understand?”
love that jpg, I will add it to my dice and roulette collection 🙂
Roger Knights says:
December 16, 2010 at 11:26 am
You said a mouthful! But it’s worse than that: they’re liable to make false (superficial,) connections and to cling to those linkages as though they were holy, just because they (and others of their ilk) propounded them.
I should have added that I see this as a major source of the disagreement between skeptics and proponents. Skeptics (generally I think ) are at least aware that we have little understanding and still no wisdom in this regard, and are willing to wait for that Wisdom before making any irrevocable decisions. Skeptics, on the other hand, tend to think that very limited data and information are sufficient to commit to those irrevocable decisions.
Roger Knights says:
December 16, 2010 at 11:26 am
You said a mouthful! But it’s worse than that: they’re liable to make false (superficial,) connections and to cling to those linkages as though they were holy, just because they (and others of their ilk) propounded them.
I should have added that I see this as a major source of the disagreement between skeptics and proponents. Skeptics (generally I think ) are at least aware that we have little understanding and still no wisdom in this regard, and are willing to wait for that Wisdom before making any irrevocable decisions. Proponents, on the other hand, tend to think that very limited data and information are sufficient to commit to those irrevocable decisions.
Note: Anthony this corrects a error in the previous submission – please correct?
LOL! The libs provide a continual stream of irony and comedy!!
Craven should definitely come here to debate. After all, what’s the worst that could happen? A bruised ego, perhaps, but he might at least gain some respect. On the other hand, if he chickens out, then we skeptics keep dragging our feet, and little or nothing winds up being done about AGW, with resultant worldwide catastrophe. Would he really want that on his conscience?
Can I say what I feel? I feel like you ought to prove something or shut the $&(% up!
The AGU proceedings are so deeply shocking as to make conservative geophysicists insist this disclaimer should hereafter IMMEDIATELY follow WUWT’s every invocation of winter cold and cooling phenomena:
— However, skeptics warn that the panorama of sub-scientific provided here is worthy of a former TV weatherman, and that besides the gibberings of amateur statisticians and the grotesqueries of K-Steet shills, Mr. Watts hosts comments so daringly innumerate and sublimely counterfactual that it takes a petrified diaphragm not to laugh at the spectacle. Modulated with hypocrisy of an amperage Al Gore might envy, WUWT givesThe Onion a stiff run for its money. —
REPLY: Well you know what they say about people like you. “You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much”. Am I correct in divining that you are the imaginary illegitimate great great x4 grandson of Cotton Mather? Do you have brothers and sisters named “Rayon” and “Nylon”? Heh, so transparent, so lame, so typical of elite thinkers to be to afraid to address a person with their own name. If I am in error, and there really is a person named “Dacron Mather” feel free to correct me and show proof.- Anthony
My last comment was directed to the panel of Craven, Hansen and the rest – not to Mosher who I would very much like to congratulate for a well-written piece.