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.
I though Mosh was an English professor!?
Did Mashey actually ask a question? Or did he just carry his soapbox with him?
What was Easterbrook’s question??
Steve, that was a very entertaining read … thank you!
Has this not been their motto (and that of the IPCC) since the days when the joy of “carbon trading” was but a mere gleam in the eyes of a fortunate few?! Perhaps Craven has taken a leaf from Mike Hulme’s book:
Not “show and tell”, but “create and tell”! Their myths transcend – and obviously trump – facts! Methinks perhaps Craven has been engaging in some transcendental dedication. But I digress …
Canada’s “best-known” climate scientist, Andrew Weaver, was no doubt an early adopter of Craven’s motto (whatever its origin). Back in 2007, Weaver had declared that AR4 would reveal climate change to be a “barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles”.
In a very “creative” way, Weaver was definitely telling us what he felt (and possibly still does) certainly nothing he could “prove”.
But really, folks, the way that these poor beleaguered “professionals” are whinging and whining about being unable to get their message across has got to be the epitome of “revisionism”!
If a martian had landed at any of these recent gatherings where they bemoan and try to improve upon their collective “communication” skills, I’m quite sure s/he would be utterly convinced that very few people on earth could ever have heard of the purported perils of “global warming” (or “climate change” or “global climate disruption” or catastrophic whatever the rebranded flavour of the month might be!)
The martian would no doubt be absolutely astounded (if not dumbfounded) to learn that for many years they’ve left no stone unturned nor paper unpublished with great flourish and fanfare (nor any mainstream media outlet without reams of ready-made copy which invariably received a place of unquestioned honour as it was promulgated far and wide!)
Amazing. Simply amazing.
The guy in the clown picture: I used to post comments on his videos at YouTube. He blocked me from commenting in all of them one by one from after a day or two. One day I got a rambling message from him in my inbox. He seemed to be a troubled person.
This was hilarious and informative. Mosher combines a critical view of the proceedings with a fresh 4chan vocabulary to compile an account accessible to the layman and scientist alike. There is no higher praise.
This may be a little OT, but here goes anyway.
I was told when I was a youth that age bought wisdom, but I have been waiting for a very long time and wisdom doesn’t seem to have arrived for me yet, at least not in the defining of Left and Right, which appears to be so vitally important to many that comment about who says what about global warming, climate change and associated topics. I believe, because I have read a few books, that the climate changes over time and will continue to do so. I also know that inventions such as the flushing toilet and the treatment of sewage are major factors in eradicating disease. The internal combustion engine, the electric motor, mechanical refigeration, the use of gas and electricity for heating dwellings, and cooking have transformed much of the world’s population from an agrarian society to a more individually specialised urban/industrial society. I know these inventions have not only transformed societies but they have also changed the ideas of time and distance.
I have read various theories that discuss Mans’ social and political evolution.
But I still don’t understand the importance of ‘Left’ or ‘Right’ as labels or how being assigned such a lable might have an impact on the way I see the world. I have no idea whether my thinking is ‘Right’ or ‘Left’. I am also puzzled as to why Liberals are so different from Democrats, or, in the UK, why Tories cannot ever agree with Liberals or Labour.
Can some wise contributor to WUWT who knows all about the essence of being Right or Left assist me, please?
Dacron Mather says:
December 16, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Old Polyester there is actually Greg Craven trying to be his normal droll self without revealing his shortcomings.
I take it this was the conference:
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm10/
I may have missed something; which session whas it? I’d love to get a formal transcript / audio / video if anyone has one…
Anthony said:
‘If I am in error, and there really is a person named “Dacron Mather” feel free to correct me and show proof.- Anthony’
My own view is that what we’ve got here is, perhaps, an anonymous astronomer/cosmologist troll struggling with the possibility that Dark Matter may be as unreal as Phlogiston or the Aether or even Global Warming.
Why is a scientific organization soliciting the opinions of a pyromaniac clown?
Gads, I wish you’d take that picture down. Just the image of that person makes me foam at the mouth and rant insanely to the dogs.
Logic and reasoning mean nothing to him. that wouldn’t seem so bad – there’s plenty of those types around – but he’s a teacher fer cryin’ out loud! a teacher! That’s what is truly sickening. It demonstrates the rise of incompetence in our [American] educational machine.
(I do think the word ‘incompetence’ understates the situation).
“Alexander K says:
December 17, 2010 at 3:03 am
“Can some wise contributor to WUWT who knows all about the essence of being Right or Left assist me, please?”
Simple Left/Right is a false dichotomy. Try this test to find out about your own values, and read their stuff, it’s good.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
@Alexander K
‘Can some wise contributor to WUWT who knows all about the essence of being Right or Left assist me, please?’
Dear Mr K, Alexander,
It is with heart felt irony I see where your problem lay. You might find it to be a vexing conundrum with no end in sight. But never fear. Because I am here. You might even find it to be a non-solvable riddle. But there is no such thing. It is, point in, fact a mere directional problem, that is very much solvable in a proper linguistic solution.
On the off chance that I might upset a few linguistic genius, don’t you worry do chap they’re most likely hippies anyway, and ought to be dealt with in quick but orderly fashion by kindly, verbally, telling them to sod off.
I know this might seem as confusing as time and distance in space so I’ll be using the dummies style of short explaining.
If you are left, then obviously you have left out what is right, therefor the conclusion (which is the easiest solution) must be that you are wrong.
If, on the other hand, you are right. . . Then you are positively absolutely completely utterly unequivocally correct in being right due to the fact that you have, obviously, not left out being right.
Sincerely
One Dandy Troll)
Steve,
Re the part of Oppenheimer’s talk that you didn’t have a clue about:
“You can’t sit on the sidelines and do nothing, because your name might show up in a climategate mail.”
I interpret it as a response to the fear many scientists feel about speaking out in public, esp after “climategate”, since that showed clearly that whatever you say can and will be used against you. He’s saying: Don’t let this fear guide you into remaining in the ivory tower.
Jeff Alberts says:
December 16, 2010 at 7:06 pm
this article was edited from raw form by Anthony Watts, correcting spelling, formatting, punctuation,
I though Mosh was an English professor!?
Did Mashey actually ask a question? Or did he just carry his soapbox with him?
What was Easterbrook’s question??
===========================
Sheesh, sometimes effort is required to answer ones questions.
Sometimes the effort is deemed to be a waste of time.
Alexander K:
I have read various theories that discuss Mans’ social and political evolution.
But I still don’t understand the importance of ‘Left’ or ‘Right’ as labels or how being assigned such a lable might have an impact on the way I see the world. I have no idea whether my thinking is ‘Right’ or ‘Left’.
Yes, I’d rather focus on how someone thinks, including me, not what to call it, but my take on word uses is: words are nothing inthemselves except for appearances, noises, sensations or anything else which can [also miraculously] be used as a tool to communicate. “They don’t carry meaning around on their back”, so the point is to find or create for any word a context of system of reference within which it has a “meaning” – that is, where the word somehow has a certain function within that context. I have no idea why this is even possible, but it is.
Therefore, “Left” and “Right” have no meaning apart from the particular context of their use, which anyone using the terms is responsible for providing but often doesn’t supply, and in fact probably can’t supply if that person thinks that words do automatically “carry meaning around on their backs.”
Supplying the context for the word to have meaning is therefore a big responsibility – I’m always aware of the problem when I use those words: I better have an answer if someone asks me about it otherwise I really don’t know what I’m talking about! Of course the more difficult overall thing is to be rational – my intended meaning of “rational” being something I can only try to indicate by referring to the rules involved in the use of the Scientific Method and its derivitive principles. There are rules in both cases, they overlap, and they work.
I KNEW there was a reason to go over yesterday’s posts!!!
THANK YOU! THANK YOU ALL!
I am now no longer sad about the End of Science as we know it……(eg: pre-darwin days)!
Any time I need a ‘lift’ a true ‘lift’ ~ I read WUWT and EACH of the Comments!
and………a hearty PRAISE BE – AMEN – YAHOO!!! to the learned ‘brother’ Joe Bastardi (and many others) for their erudite critiques, as well…!
Science may ‘in deed’ be resurrected yet! BY ALL OF YOU!!!
….an’ now, if you’ll forgive me ~ I’m a goin’ out to the paddocks for a well-deserved smoke…bro’s…!
Cynthia Lauren Thorpe
Sorry I’m late commenting. Having my hard drive crash 11 hours before my presentation was one of the more minor events of my week.
I’m the nutjob in question, and here’s yet another long-winded response. I hope you’ll find this one isn’t a rant, but an appeal to justice for an innocent organization. I’ll soon be sending an open letter to a number of climate blogs (including this one) that I hope they will publish in full, to clarify and rectify what happened on Wednesday the 15th.
Until then, here’s the essential message I want to convey: my statements and demeanor during my presentation were not endorsed by, condoned by, representative of, or even expected by the AGU, its board, or any of its members. I went off the rails completely on my own, and I’m sure they deeply regret having invited me. Really the only thing the AGU had to do with my talk was making the mistake of giving me the stage without first verifying what I had to say. And it is a testament to their commitment to free and unfettered discussion that they did not cut my talk short once it was abundantly clear that I was off my rocker. I think I probably would have had I been in their shoes.
In a way, I regret that they didn’t, since my self-implosion (can you say thermonuclear?) was exceedingly unpleasant to me, and potentially damaging to an upstanding professional organization that I believe is deserving of respect.
You are free to characterize this as back tracking. But as you will see in the letter, I am not. I am trying to ensure justice for an innocent organization that was victim to my sleep deprivation, stress, passion, terror for my children’s security, and general nutjobiness. And I am not retracting the basic message or fervent appeal of the speech. I mostly regret that it was delivered in a way that not only unfairly maligned an upstanding organization, but blunted my message to those I wanted to hear it the most.
My open letter is quite lengthy so if this site chooses to publish just an excerpt, I am asking that they first send me the excerpt for review and acquire my permission before posting. I hope you’ll agree that’s a reasonable request. I have no problem with analysis and criticism of my presentation, but I do feel strongly that the facts of it be correctly conveyed, as I have already been significantly misquoted. I expect that you do not appreciate having your statements mischaracterized or misquoted either. What I said was indeed impertinent, audacious, fervent, and–one could easily argue—over the top, inappropriate to the venue, irrational, fearmongering, megalomaniacal, and silly. (I agree with the over the top, inappropriate, and silly, but not with the others. Feel free to disagree.)
But I believe some of your characterizations of what I said to be misrepresentative. You are of course free to give your assessment of my presentation, demeanor, or state of mental health. But everyone in the debate says “look at the facts and let them speak for themselves.” I ask that you do the same thing and limit yourself to quoting my actual words, criticizing them and myself as you will, without taking upon yourself to characterize what I said. I am painfully aware that I am a pathological overtalker and can’t be succinct to save my life.
I do not expect you to agree with my words or me. But I do expect you have the discipline and principle to convey the speech accurately, rather than settling for your interpretations and summaries of what I said (as you did in the “Basically it goes like this…” set-out). I’m sure that you’ll agree that characterizing your opponent’s words yourself does no service to forwarding the discussion.
My main interest here is not in absolution for myself (I am sadly beyond absolution), but in an accurate conveying of the facts, so that any discussion and conclusions are made on what actually happened and not on one’s perception of what happened.
To that end, I will be posting an audio file of the speech as well as a transcription as soon as I can. (Due to the hard drive crash and the intensity of the day, the lone copy of the text has been lost—too bad the shame still exists in audio.) Please be patient. I will get it done as soon as I can get my computer up and running again.
Thanks for your consideration, and I hope you’ll consider printing my open letter as soon as I can get it to you.
Dunce hat willingly accepted, Steve.
Sufficiently Chagrined,
Greg Craven
And I regret to say that you shouldn’t get your hopes up about me serving up anymore fish in a barrel to shoot. I am determined—despite all evidence to the contrary (such as my regrettably unrestrained performance on the panel—oh, the gut-wrenching inability to limit myself)—to retire from the debate, and instead focus on making amends to the family that I have so egregiously neglected in my (what I’m sure you’ll consider misguided) attempt at safeguarding their security.
This has been a tragic obsession on my part, which has done more harm than good to my family. And knowing that makes my insides feel like I’ve swallowed razor blades.
If someone comes and pays me a bunch of money to compensate for the time and love taken from my family, then you may see me again. Otherwise, I think I’ve plenty burned out in the shouting match, and you needn’t worry about me again.
In the end, of course, it doesn’t matter what you or I or anyone believes. We’ll find out soon enough who was “right.” Because in any gap between belief and the workings of the physical world, physics wins every time. The law of gravity doesn’t care what any of us believes will happen when we fall out a window.
You may consider this disingenuous or manipulative, but I pursued this–and willingly endured the damage to my health and my family that resulted–out of desperate love for my two amazing young daughters. I pray that history judges my actions just. Even if wrong.
Sincerely,
Greg Craven
Poster Child for the Climate Nutjobs
@bart verheggen
If anybody ‘publishes’ their views, they make them open to scrutiny and criticism by other folks. Nothing especially new here for climatologists.
But maybe the reminder that there are some serious and knowledgeable people who are no longer disposed to view their opinions as Gospel Truth might make them a little more cautious in interpreting their data and a little less likely to proclaim the imminent End of the World………..
Re Greg Craven
I stopped reading once he got to the bit about
At least he and I agree on one thing. Being prolix is not being a good communicator. And yet he describes himself as such.
Call for the lithium for Mr Craven, nurse!
Re Greg Craven (2)
It would have been better for Mr Craven to have waited until the Open Letter was complete and just published that. Spending good editing time on digging the hole even deeper wastes his own time (about which I am indifferent) and lots of readers…which is impolite/rude of him.
Greg
The principle issue I have is your lack of rhetorical skill. The ‘aw shucks’ I’m no expert, just a school teacher from Oregon doesnt work. Neither does the “i’ve neglected my family” meme work . You need a better writer. Your stage presence was commanding. You dominated a dais of your superiors. The issue was you let that power go to your head and lost your audience. You know that lady who went on too long for your liking.. She was on your side, you needed to let her “represent” after all she was showing the kind of passion you wanted to inspire. It was that turning point that clued me in to your psychology.
I have noticed this tendency in a number of concerned persons that just accepted the evangelical message that Big Al conveyed and then, while trying to claim the upper and moral superiority of their position as an intellectual refused to consider any possible retreat from that position or need to even look at the quality of the science they were blindly defending.
As Judith Curry points out an extreme form of dogmatism. The reaction when finding their blind faith demolished is a total nervous collapse bordering on psychosis. (this IS NOT a medical diagnosis! just an observation.)
I feel so sorry for those people, they are genuine in their concerns and with their strong belief its natural that the events that have eroded the CAGW hype have also bought these otherwise good hearted concerned people to a state of collapse.
Greg for yourself, and those who do really care for you, take a break and some sound professional advice, you will look back one day, it will all make sense. All is not lost.
Latimer “Nothing especially new here for climatologists”,
I think we agree that if the study object was the mating behavior of fruitflies we wouldn’t have this conversation.
What’s new (or perhaps not so new) is the sheer hostility towards climate science and scientists, to find anything, no matter how insignificant or to what extent it needs to be bent or spun, that can be used to paint them in a dark light. Most scientists just like doing science, and this mudwrestle game they could heartily do without. They didn’t sign up for this when they did their PhD, and many are completely taken aback by this hostility.
Oppenheimer is trying to say, please don’t let this stop you from voicing your scientific opinions in public.
Sh**. You rant, Greg.
The cool thing is that most folks around here can even decipher Sanskrit…so, rants are ‘No Worries’.
An’ since I assume it was you ‘in the hat’ and it was the ‘same you’ that just sent the note on Comments… I only ask that you take a deep breath ~ relax ~ and gently consider a few items that will cost nothing to initiate:
1. So, in my opinion, you are either crying for empathetic help… OR ~ (my cynical side says) you could be playing some convoluted form of ‘word self-defense’ that you’ve (kinda) been perfecting for a while… Regardless, Greg. You’re a man and it seems that if you hang out at AGW, then, you should be a professional one, at that… so, rants in these venues are unbecoming at best.
So ~ facts are that you’re either joking or you’re not. Plain an’ simple. So, if you’re joking – its a bad one, and if you’re not… well… I’d wager by your words that you’re at least playing emotional volleyball with words simply because you ‘can’ and that’s not playing ‘fair’ in a professional forum. Perhaps things have been tough lately (‘specially with the computer) and humans the world over get stretched at this time of year… I hope you’ll be having a good rest, regardless.
I’d also suggest folks around you that won’t let you get ‘away’ with sh**, either and B.S. definitely walks at this address of Anthony’s, Greg, it’s simply not tolerated, ‘cept in jest.
I strongly suggest some ‘Accountability’, too. Like… friends that are good enough friends to tell you when you need to ‘chill out’. And…….’chill out’, Greg, I again, as a fellow human, suggest that – you must. For your own sake and for the sake of others ~ for you ‘wrote’ what others have accused Glenn Beck of…….and HE doesn’t do what you ‘wrote’, Glenn. Only drama-greenies do… and I know a few of them here in Kingston, so that’s not a ‘stretch’.
2. Letters from ANYONE (not just linguists or historians or scientists, but anyone) need to maintain at least a ‘stream’ of consciousness… and what I just read was either a ‘silly tsunami of sorts’ or a real cry for help. You do the ‘mea culpa-ing’ initially, and then you do this ‘about face’ where you start demanding ‘your form of justice’ when it’s obvious that you don’t make yourself play by the same rules.
No one can have it both ways. The letter was tough/sad to read, regardless and it does appear like you are a master at manipulating emotions, too. You may be having a tough day ~ but, everyone does at times. But, using ‘many words’ in order to confuse and confound isn’t playing ‘fair’ in this type of environment. (‘specially after listening to the ‘green sea choir’…….you’ve GOTTA know we’re all a bit frazzled…Yech! Thank GOD they’re in the UK…may they STAY THERE, too. Preferably near…yep. Stonehenge, would be fine. (MY attempt at humor…I hope no ‘offense was taken’ but, if so ~ sh** happens, Yes?)
3. Regardless, Please have a quiet happy Christmas, Greg. I sincerely mean that. Hope the computer stops crashing, too. They can be a pain in the butt.
An’ Lastly…I’d drop the hat, friend. Quickly. It doesn’t suit you.
Merry Christmas to you.
Cynthia Lauren Thorpe