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.
@bart verheggen
You mean that they’d like back the pre-Climategate days of secrecy, pal-review, adherence to the Team line, ‘keep your head down and one day we’ll let you play in the IPCC sandpit’..and permanent government and Big Oil grants just so long as you mention AGW often enough. And of a cosy lack of auditing( Bad!!) or openness (Very Bad – you might find something wrong with it!).
Out here in reality land away from the hallowed walls of acdemia, bad things happen,. People are made redundant, projects get cancelled, your work gets outsourced to a BRIC, you don’t get to work in what you find interesting but on what the guy who pays the cheque finds important. Sometimes you have to do uncongenial things..and maybe under less than ideal conditions. The auditors come around. You get asked to justify your job.
That’s just life, and I am completely unconvinced that doing a Climatology PhD should act as a permanent insulation from these things. As the interest in the field diminishes and Congress is less amenable to shell out Big Bucks for ‘further research’, you guys will have to get used to it. And it looks like you are trying your best to do it the hard way, not the easy way.
Changing your communication strategy to be more emotional is like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. My advice is to go find the lifeboats instead.
Greg Craven:
Thankyou for making a response here. I think that was wise, but I also think that response compounded your mistake by failing to address a specific point.
I remind that part of a post I addressed to you on Judith Curry’s blog said this:
“The statement which I write to comment on was;
“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. ”
If that statement was not made by you then please repudiate it in a very public forum; e.g. WUWT.
And if you did say, it then please reconsider it as a matter of urgency. That statement is an attack on science, it is a denial of scientific ethics, and its mere assertion undermines public confidence in science.
The overselling of AGW by ‘climate scientists’ has already harmed public confidence in all science and in all scientists. “Say what you feel, not what you can prove” is an absolute denial of a fundamental scientific principle. Indeed, it is call for scientists to abandon the scientific method and to return to pre-enlightenment thinking.
This attack on science and scientists is so serious that all scientist should be disassociating themselves from you unless and until you make a clear public statement that you did not intend to assert to scientists “Say what you feel, not what you can prove” and that you completely and unequivocally reject that assertion.”
You have now posted further comments including one here and another on Judith Curry’s blog. But you have yet to address the important issue of the statement attributed to you.
Richard
If Mr. Craven wishes to provide an open letter, and audio file of the event, I’ll be happy to publish it here. A good title might be “jousting with jesters” in honor of the hat.
My long stated policy has been to make WUWT open to our friends on the other side of the debate. That said, I’m still waiting for the open minded Tamino to take me up on the offer I made to him.
Greg Craven says:
“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. ”
Strange argument. I thought his argument was “We can’t wait until something evil happens; we need do act now and throw all our resources at it before anything happens.”
I don’t think this is the same Craven that made the youtube video.
Greg Craven says:
December 17, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Greg Craven says:
December 17, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Mr Craven
Do you see why you have no credibility nor any respect from readers and commentors both here at WUWT and at Judith Currys blog?
Do you think we can’t read past your stupidity and see and understand the core of your basic message? You obviously do, else you wouldn’t have posted this diatribe further digging yourself into the amply deep hole.
Sure we’ve made fun of you (deservedly) but the reason why you don’t have any credibility with the WUWT community is BECAUSE OF YOUR BASIC MESSAGE.
You insult us by assuming we didn’t understand your core message.
You are also a hypocrite and an untrustworthy person, condemned by your own words.
You wax lyrical about “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.” and “This has been a tragic obsession on my part, which has done more harm than good to my family.” and more, yet you follow all this up with “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.” So you are willing to put your family through all that again so long as there is money at the end of it? Are you kidding us? What does your wife think of that? What would your daughters think of that? What were you thinking man?
I’m sure your open letter will be the long winded diatribe we all expect, it may be an item of passing interest to some, and within days you will be forgotten by us.
But you won’t be forgotten by your family, so I suggest you use the time it may take to draft the open letter to write one to your wife instead and sit down with her and mend the most important bridge in your life. What we think of you is irrelevant.
Greg Craven.
For the sake of yourself and your family revisit the science of (catastrophic)AGW with an open mind.
Fear is a terrible thing. Unfounded fear is worse than that.
“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.”
I think he means he can’t do all this and keep his day job and do justice to the rest of his life. There’s nothing evil about that.
I thoroughly sympathize. I really do hope the world finds a way to pay Greg for his services to the discourse. I think those of us who appreciate him should take this opportunity to say so. So from the bottom of my own heart, thanks, Greg, many thanks!
Let me be clear:
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.
This is not a direct quote of what Greg said, it is ,as I say ,his argument in a nut shell
basically it goes Like this.
“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.”
Greg, I’m glad you see that as a summary of what you said rather than a quote. The only quote I could recall was “republicans are irrational” I also believe you used the phrase that they suffer from “confirmation bias” You can confirm those for people.
I feel I entered Bizarro world somewhere. Craven mentioned Paleoclimatologists becoming survivalist? Hansen’s sixties flash-backs were bizarre enough, now the nut-job left is joining the nut-job right in bunker building? I picked a bad year to quit alcohol and drugs.
Michael Tobis
At December 18, 2010 at 11:33 am you say:
“I really do hope the world finds a way to pay Greg for his services to the discourse. I think those of us who appreciate him should take this opportunity to say so. So from the bottom of my own heart, thanks, Greg, many thanks!”
You were being sarcastic, weren’t you?
If not, then I suggest that you and all others who share your opinion have a whip-round on his behalf. I think there are probably enough of you to contribute sufficient money to buy him a current bun.
Richard
@Craven
‘But everyone in the debate says “look at the facts and let them speak for themselves.’
Surely this tosh should read something like:
‘But everyone in the debate says “look at the facts (after we’ve twisted them, altered them using methods and data we won’t disclose to other scientists and after we’ve vilified anyone who dares to use the scientific method to prove them wrong) and urge the complicit shallow press and venal politicians to constantly repeat the lies and deception for themselves”
I’m sure that can be improved upon but it’s a start. And I’m deeply tired of hearing the ‘leetle cheeldren’ trope from the warmist cultists. I don’t feel sorry for Craven. Interesting name.
As I scroll through additional comments posted today, I gotta say thank you
to (appropriately, at this time of year) Baa Humbug, one among many brilliant ‘missives’.
I literally caught my breath at the depth of understanding, Sir. I mean it. Wowie Zowie, deep AND succinct. The comment like so many others… are a pleasure to read.
Heck. Who knows? If you guys keep this up ~ you’re gonna polish up that somewhat tarnished image your profession has endured as of late. It’s none too soon, either. Children and Grandchildren need Truth to springboard off of.
I’m smiling broadly and once again heartened by the depth of character that always pops up after pettiness & ignorance is on display. It’s truly amazing and since I don’t believe in coincidences… Baa Humbug really fit the bill. The time for substituting emotional diatribes in lieu of observation and rational thought as seen in REAL SCIENCE ~ should be at an END.
Just think of it ~ you guys could have your OWN ‘Great Awakening’… who knows WHAT you’d accomplish then…quarks vaulted in a single bound and quacks uncovered with a wave of the hand… Amazing.
Full of Admiration This Christmas…
C.L. Thorpe
Greg Craven, from my point of view the most important thing I can tell you about your performance at the AGU meeting – as described by Steven Mosher and for which you apologized – is that it didn’t surprise me at all!
Cutting to the chase, even Climate Science’s way of doing its “science” is at least equally dysfunctional.
I made a video to show the invalidity of Craven’s arguement using probability of a car crash as an example.
Let me know what you think?
It seems Greg Craven is back-pedalling frantically:
http://curryja.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/agu-fall-meeting-part-iii-an-open-letter-from-greg-craven/
This isn’t fair, but I never promised fairness. From my handy desktop widget dictionary:
craven |ˈkrāvən|
adj: contemptibly lacking in courage; cowardly: a craven abdication of his moral duty.
This is a scary article and thread. It shows who the heroes of the AGU are – the kind of people they pick to show as their public face; their representatives.
They could have selected any number of their members with solid accomplishments. Instead, they honored the disreputable Steven Schneider, who advocated lying to advance a pseudo-scientific cause, and now they give the world Craven in a clown hat.
What were they thinking?
Leave it to YOU, Smokey ~ to have us understand just ‘WHAT’S IN A NAME’….
And, yeah. What you found, at first blush – may appear to be ‘somewhat mean spirited’… but, to dare report the obvious, requires both strength and wisdom in this ‘climate’ of 2010… I daresay, you’ve got both.
A high Five to you, kiddo.
Cynthia Lauren
Here’s yet another commercial study in ‘lunacy’ and how ‘wordplay’ is what these
useful idiots use…….. I give you Gentlemen, my last ‘spam email’…:
—————————————————————-
Give a Green Gift:
Be a “Buffalo Babysitter”
Hi Cynthia Lauren,
Yellowstone’s buffalo are America’s largest — and one of the last — free-roaming herds. But each winter, these iconic animals face harassment and slaughter when they wander from the park in search of food.
Become a “Buffalo Babysitter” and help end the slaughter of Yellowstone’s buffalo. »
These roaming buffalo are either hazed back into the park, where food is scarce in winter, or slaughtered because of an exaggerated fear that they’ll spread a disease to domestic livestock — and there are no credible reports of this ever happening in the wild.
Thousands of Yellowstone buffalo have been killed over the past decade, but you can help protect America’s last free-roaming herd by choosing one of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Green Gifts. Become a “Buffalo Babysitter.” »
This gift allows you to help protect buffalo when they leave the park in search of fresh grass and their spring birthing grounds. It’s the perfect gift for any wildlife lover.
So instead of more “stuffing” for your stockings, give a lifesaving gift to your friends, family and Yellowstone’s buffalo. Celebrate the true meaning of the holiday season by generously saving buffalo through NRDC’s “Buffalo Babysitter” gift, or by choosing any of their wildlife-saving and environmentally-friendly gifts. »
Your generosity can help Yellowstone buffalo find food in winter without being hazed or slaughtered.
From Care2
Thank you,
Kayla
————————————————————
A BUFFALO BABYSITTER???? Imagine it, if you will……..
Okay. Enough imagination. Her photo wouldn’t transfer over, either…. but, now
rather than looking for a coonskin cap…….I’m going to my next Wyoming Rendezvous
lookin’ for a buffalo wrap……..
Give me a BREAK. ……..someone rocks up to your door at $50 an hour and will babysit your buffalo………..YECK.
Craven can be Groucho and this babe who wrote can be Harpo…
HEY ALL YOU COOL SCIENTISTS! FIND A WAY TO STOP THIS MADNESS IN WHATEVER WAY YOU ARE ABLE! (baby sittin’ buffaloes and abortin’ kids… Good LORD……….I need a bubble bath…..where’s the Cab Sav…Where DO they ‘make’ these people???!!!)
~rant ended……..I’m out for a smoke on the back veranda remembering Chevy Chase’s great line………..~
C.L. Thorpe
Greg Craven, by his own pocket bio:
“[G]raduated from the University of Puget Sound with majors in Asian studies and computer science. In my 20s, I worked on my father’s nursery, did some computer consulting, traveled extensively around Asia (living in India for a year and working in a rural development community), worked for Student Pugwash USA in Washington D.C. (a non-profit concerned with creating conversations about the social and ethical implications of science), then went back to school at the University of Washington and Willamette University to become a high school science teacher. Taught Physics, Chemistry, and a variety of other science and math courses since, always focusing on developing thinking skills. ”
That job he had in D.C. was at spusa.org, founded “with the fundamental belief that young people play a vital role in determining the socially responsible application of science and technology”. It’s the US student affiliate of Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, recipients of the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize. John P. Holdren gave the Pugwash acceptance lecture.
After working for Pugwash, Craven took some science classes (he didn’t actually get a degree from UW or Willamette), passed the exam Oregon requires for teachers without degrees in science who want to teach it, and then went on to Pugwash his students: “His main qualification for proposing a layman’s approach to climate change is having borrowed the 30 brains in his classroom every period to mull questions of science and critical thinking for the last ten years. He’s found there’s no better way to refine a thought than to toss it out in front of a roomful of critical teenagers is [sic] a bit surprised to find he’s written a book as a result.”
In short, it appears he became a high school science teacher to inculcate his charges with his views on socially acceptable energy use, and to do the same to as many other people as possible.
So…. That’s it, then. The man has a podium NOT because he’s Degree’d in this subject.
He’s a believer in social indoctrination with a ‘scientific cover’…
I’ve now gotta wonder…or rather, research who these ‘clowns’ are, rather than believe
they have a forum because they’ve earned it… simply obscene.
My last thought is that Craven ‘acts/writes’ as he does because when humans are presented with a human who appears to be a loose cannon… they handle all matters
concerning them (the l.c’s) with caution and care rather than simply ‘calling stuff as it is’, rather than simply stating Truth because of the loose cannon. No more for this gal.
Speaking the Truth in Love is always the way to go…then, either guys like this will simply ‘poof’ (evaporate) off the scene or………they’ll ‘explode’ like they seem to promise and lose all credibility in the process… Either way….. they’re done with.
It DOES gall me, though… and it causes me to ponder all of the myriad of other ‘educators’ and where THEIR Degrees LIE/lay/whatever… and in what year their crap goes unchallenged……. how galling.
Regardless, thanks for the useful information, Greg. I’ve now been warned.
C.L. Thorpe
Craven promised to post audio and a transcript, but no sign yet as far as I can tell – is there anyone that has seen this and can provide a link?
A Grima Wormtongue is a Grima Wormtongue is a…… you know the rest.
The time for the Mea Culpas is before you have burned the accused at the stake, not after.
For those interested in viewing the catalyst for Craven’s implosion (internal voices notwithstanding, of course), a video of Michael Oppenheimer’s presentation is posted on the AGU web site – http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm10/lectures/lecture_videos/GC33D.shtml .
As a bonus, a portion of the panel discussion that followed the presentation and offers the viewer a glimpse of “The Craven Implosion” is included. Unfortunately, the entire discussion is not spanned. Regardless, get out the popcorn, find a comfy couch, and brush-off the notion of “knowing your role” vis-à-vis the National Military Establishment’s Plan B of your Worst-case Scenario Response…
Craven is on a caffeine or “other” beverage-fueled rant. He reminds me of the character of “Hoops” McCann from the 1986 movie “One Crazy Summer.” Hoops (played by John Cusack) is upset at the slavishness of the bank’s repossession of a friend’s (Cassandra) property when he comments:
“Hoops [passionately energized]: If we give in, we’re giving in to all the cute, fuzzy bunnies in the world.
Egg Stork [totally confused]: Yeah, yeah… that’s just what I was thinking.”
Yeah, Mr. Craven, that’s just what I was thinking…
“There are so few Republican scientists, he explained, because Republicans are irrational.”
Nah. To find the Republicans you need to go to the Engineering departments.
Let’s see what Craven has put on his web site. A complete transcript, maybe? No, it was “edited for stumbles”. The video? Not yet, editing audio and video to delete “stumbles” is harder, especially if you’re trying to make a trainwreck less embarrassing. Perhaps a farewell, especially given his promises to retire from the debate?
Apparently not:
“And now a different take on scientists! I recently gave the talk of my life (unless one of you organizes a successful campaign to get TED Talks to call) at the American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) Fall Meeting–the largest conference of physical scientists in the world!
I took it as the opportunity to give a big ol’ slap in the face to a crowd that I fear may very well be our last hope–the climate scientists themselves.”
It looks like he has not yet hit bottom.