by Steven Mosher
In the last episode of “Craven Attention” I recounted some of the things Greg Craven said during a panel discussion after Oppenheimer’s lecture of the role of scientists. [GC33D The 2010 Stephen Schneider Global Environmental Change Lecture (Webcast)Moscone South, Gateway Ballroom, Room 103, 1345h–1440h Scientists, Expert Judgment, and Public Policy: What is Our Proper Role? Presented by M. Oppenheimer, Geosciences, Princeton University]
Greg seemed to take issue with my characterization of some of his comments.
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…
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.
And he seeks to vindicate himself by posting a transcript of the episodes.
And my remarks have already been mischaracterized and misquoted, to further malign the AGU. In the interests of accuracy and truthful reporting, I will post an audio file and transcription of my presentation as given at www.gregcraven.org as soon as I can.
He has now posted a transcript of a different presentation he gave earlier in the day. Huh? Strangely the audio that produced that transcript is still not available. The problem is my piece covered a different episode. He posted a transcript of the meeting at 1020 AM on the 15th and I covered the panel that followed Oppenheimer who spoke at 13:40-14:00. Still, we can note some things and see if it’s possible that I got the gist of what Craven was saying correct. That is, by looking at the first transcript we can see that my characterization of the second speech is not implausible. Let’s just say the second presentation was a good model for the first.
First lets note this. The Craven who cares about being misquoted had this to say; take special care to note his definition of the meaning of communication below:
my message to you now is that you must stop communicating as scientists. You must begin communicating as citizens, as a father, as a mother, with whatever feelings are in your heart, with your fears, speak to them of your hopes, let them know about your befuddlement at the divergence. And tell them frankly, forthrightly, sincerely, about any terror that you are ignoring…..
You say you want to have an effect on the public? If you trod a journey at all similar to mine, think, visualize, take five minutes to meditate on the impact it would have if you took off your goddamned scientist hat for just a moment, and put on your citizen hat. And said frankly to the public through the largest mouthpiece you can: “As a scientist, here’s my understanding. As a citizen, here’s my hope, my vision. And as a mother, here’s my contingency plan, here’s my lifeboat.”….
If you obliterated your comfort zone and the hard line of purity of your scientific sensibilities–that you do cling to, with the faith of a god–and you actually went forth as an actual advocate, a sentiment normally anathema to the constitution of a scientist, imagine if you went out into the fray bearing your heart, with your emotion and the authority of your understanding as your weapon. For what you’ve been giving them as a scientist up to now is information, and with that increasing divergence between public and scientific opinion…
You must stop selfishly pursuing your pleasure in finding things out. To be frank: f*** your research. We. Need. You. I know I am almost certain to outrage you with my impertinence and the audacity of my message. And my word choice, for substituting ‘f*** for ‘screw’. [Mild laughter.] And that’s the lesson you must absorb into the fiber of your being, for the meaning of communication is not what you intend, or the information. The meaning of communication is the response it elicits in the listener. And that’s where we have failed. So while you may be likely to forget the details of my rant, you will always feel the emotional aftertaste of it. And that is the purpose of communicating the science of climate change to the lay public. To give them an emotional aftertaste.
Your role, your job–the one we have assigned you and gladly supported–has always been to stand on the hill overlooking the bloody battlefield and give reconnaissance and convey information about what’s ahead. But there comes a time in the last stand for every single support troop, no matter how far removed, to pick up a weapon, come down into the fray, and fight to the death for what they stand for. To charge into the face of annihilation itself and fight with their teeth, tearing out the jugular of their enemy with their bloody mouth if they have no weapons left. That time is now.
If you do not believe that, if you do not feel that, I challenge you to be intellectually honest–that part of you that you hold up as better than any other profession, and I support you in that opinion–you are the only rational thinkers on the planet. Beware, psychological research shows that people don’t generally make decisions rationally. If you don’t agree with this–that this is the time to radically challenge your comfort zone, and your traditional mores of never letting feelings or opinions on policy pass your lips–I’m not going say “If not now, then when?” I’m going to say: detail an operational definition of a test to test whether a situation would merit that extreme action or not. Come up with the characteristics. And then I defy you to compare them to the situation now. If you do that, forget everything I’ve said. I absolve you. That’s all I ask. But if your intellectually honest operational definition tells you that the time is now. . . .
These snippets are from his earlier speech. However, in the panel after Oppenheimer’s talk he gave a similar version of the “comfort zone” challenge. The “emotional aftertaste” I was left with after I forgot the details of his second rant was this:
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 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.
I apologize if I got it “wrong,” but on Greg’s view my emotional “aftertaste” IS the meaning of what he said. I guess those years of studying Stanley Fish and Roland Barthes came in handy. Personally, I want scientists to keep their science hat on at all times. Others can panic without any practice or education. To be fair to Greg and to present his argument a bit more precisely and rigorously he seems to want scientists to speak emotionally about policy while retaining their objectivity in science. Except, for the ” f*** your research part” which is a bit hard to square with things. Craven thinks scientists research because they take pleasure in it. Removing doubt and uncertainty is an equally likely motivation. So there he seems to be saying they should put their desire to remove doubt and uncertainty aside in favor of passion. Oppenheimer’s point, on the other hand, was this: as an expert you have a problem. People make take your positions on policy to be expert scientific opinions, when they are not. And my point would be this. The passion for policy is part and parcel of the problem of trust in climate science. For Craven, the “understanding” drives the passion. But for many of the people that need to be convinced the displays of passion undermine trust in the science. That’s their emotional aftertaste.
Oh dear. I feel badly for him. What a most unfortunate moniker:
craven |ˈkrāvən|
adjective
contemptibly lacking in courage; cowardly : a craven abdication of his moral duty.
noun archaic
a cowardly person.
DERIVATIVES
cravenly adverb
cravenness noun
ORIGIN Middle English cravant [defeated,] perhaps via Anglo-Norman French from Old French cravante, past participle of cravanter ‘crush, overwhelm,’ based on Latin crepare ‘burst.’ The change in the ending in the 17th cent. was due to association with past participles ending in -en
Isn’t Craven simply a hgh school teacher and not a real driver of any real global warming science? Let’s leave this guy alone, he seems a bit disturbed and not worth your time…
Amen, Mosher. It seems to me that many liberals operate under Craven’s paradigm all day. What you feel is more important than what you think, if you think at all. I love my kids, and love raising them. I also enjoy my time with my adult colleagues as we spend time solving problems sansemotions, and fortunately for a profit. I suspect Craven has never experienced the emotion of meeting a payroll, maybe the emotional aftertaste of not being sure you could do it at first would allow him to think more dispassionately.
His attitude is consistent with the IPCC mandate – we already know that global warming is caused by people, so now we need to generate the science arguments to convince the people that it is bad and we need to make a lot of very serious changes in how the world is ruled to mitigate those effects. The job of the scientists is to support those political efforts.
Now Mr. Craven is saying that the science part is done and the scientists need to get down in the pit with the activists and push their science.
Problem is, they didn’t get the science right, and the real scientists who looked at what they did have poled all sorts of holes in it, so now they have a problem. The lawyers have a saying: “When the law goes against you, pound on the facts; when the facts go against you, pound on the law; when both the law and the facts go against you, pound on the table.” AGW is at the table pounding stage.
If you need to swear then you’ve lost already. Debate rule #1
My emotional aftertaste after reading the transcript of the earlier meeting (and to borrow his use of full stops between words):
Greg.Craven.is.stark.raving.mad.
(to be fair he does admit it in the talk)
I am actually physically sick at this political assassination of the tenets of science. To paraphrase Mr Craven: “[/snip]“.
[Such vulgarity is unwarranted, unnecessary…. bl57~mod]
Yes, this stuff is mostly interesting as evidence of serious mental disturbance. It is quite extraordinary that these people are invited to engage in public nervous breakdowns at what are supposed to be science conventions. You were wrong to laugh, by the way. The guy suffers from a quite serious condition. He needs help.
No offence intended, but simple observation of Craven’s behaviour and comments leads me to the conclusion that he is seriously mentally ill. He should be disuaded from making an exhibition of himself in this way.
“I suspect Craven has never experienced the emotion of meeting a payroll”
I suspect he’s doing exactly that with this idiocy. And I’m sure he delights in getting it reposted and discussed as much as possible, as that adds to his validity, at least in his mind.
JimB
“Craven Attention, The Prequel”
“A prime example of how science is distorted by – likely well meaning – scientists or science educators. Deliberately or not this video is a masterful piece of propaganda pretending to be science. Credits are due to Greg Craven, the master propagandist who appears in the video.”
http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/when-scientists-fail-to-present-all-the-known-facts-including-the-ones-that-contract-their-hypothesis-they-become-propagandists-and-bad-scientists
“If you don’t agree with this … I’m going to say: detail an operational definition of a test to test whether a situation would merit that extreme action or not. Come up with the characteristics. And then I defy you to compare them to the situation now. If you do that, forget everything I’ve said.”
When I’m trying to find an analogy for something that is life-or-death, I usually use a medical analogy. In medicine, an extreme case would be having to amputate a leg to save your life. I certainly wouldn’t undergo an amputation for a condition which no-one had ever been diagnoes with before, where the doctors had not been able to predict the progress of my illness to date (warm winters turning into cold winters). What’s more if the disease was only going to have a serious effect after a few decades, I’d wait for more research before I took drastic action – especially if I discovered that not all doctors agreed with the “consensus” view.
Can I forget everything he’s said?
diagnoes = diagnosed (sorry)
rxc says:
December 30, 2010 at 12:49 am
—————
AGW is at the table pounding stage.
__________
That about sums up Craven’s speech.
There would seem to be several inconsistencies between the apologia sent to Mr Mosher and the Mea Culpa posted by Mr Craven at Prof. Curry’s blog, “Climate etc”.
I am not certain that the continuous relationship between Mr. Craven and the AGU is in their best mutual interests as it is possible that both Mr. Craven’s health and the reputation of the AGU could be adversely affected.
Mosher: “For Craven, the “understanding” drives the passion. But for many of the people that need to be convinced the displays of passion undermine trust in the science. That’s their emotional aftertaste. ”
Exactly, and those “many people” are right to distrust the science of those “passionate” scientists. I would argue that this “passion” often borders on an ideological obsession. The world should be transformed.
In 2007 scientist James Hansen joined with other scientists and evangelicals to save the planet. In their “Urgent Call to Action,” to George W. Bush, Nancy Pelosi, congressional leaders, and national evangelical and scientific organizations they called for immediate transformation of the world:
“We declare that every sector of our nation’s leadership-religious, scientific, business, political, and educational-must act now to work toward the fundamental change in values, lifestyles, and public policies required to address these worsening problems before it is too late. There is no excuse for further delays. Business as usual cannot continue yet one more day. We pledge to work together at every level to lead our nation toward a responsible care for creation, and we call with one voice to our scientific and evangelical colleagues, and to all others, to join us in these efforts.”
James Hansen has showed that he will use all means, including illegal ones. It is only prudent to assume that these means could include scientific distortions.
Climategate.
Trust in climate science is at an all-time low. Until proper open science is allowed to be pursued about climate, without those doing the research having to toe the party line due to financial and political pressure, the null hypothesis is the only viable option to the CAGW conjecture.
Ha ha – ‘The table pounding stage’ – yep, I like that!
But to my mind, it’s perhaps more of the spoilt 6yr old child’s ‘foot stamping’ and tantrum stage! I am sure many parents will recognise the similarities of behaviour! The child keeps asking, keeps being refused, starts to shout, is then ignored, starts to throw a tantrum and gets sent to his room, screaming blue murder, etc. And we know how difficult it is to reason with a screaming child?
The trouble is, in my day, I’d get a good thwack round the ear – This is, of course, not the ‘modern’ or approved way of child rearing – and look where that has lead us! LOL!
(Maybe thats kind of the same as in modern academia, where old scientists used to ‘put down’ their prodigies? prevent publication, etc – but these days, the young pups are given free reign?)
One day, some of these tantrum throwing, table thumping climate idiots will HAVE to be put in their place!
I think it is important that he should go and see a doctor as soon as he can .the poor fella needs help
Craven is preaching ‘post normal science’. Namely, that science must adapt to the needs of society as defined by people like him and the AGW alarmists.
As a propagandist he is third rate – too patronising and too much invective. Dr Goebbels would have wiped the floor with him.
While I agree with most of the above posters comments, most of the actual content of the OP’s thread was a distinct yawner.
Steven, I really admire your approach and the factual analysis of Greg Craven’s presentations
But do you realize you’re taking on a complete crack pot?
The entire exercise is an absolute waste of time if you ask me.
Craven is simply selling the same true believer endemic to today’s politics…namely if you don’t like the message spin until the lie is what you want and repeat it consistently. Worked for the “death panel” meme in the healthcare debate and the “we cant tax the rich” even though they have the lowest tax rates in history. Let’s not blame Craven for this but look at the bigger picture of a DC that does not function brought on by lies from both sides. The global warming lie is but one – question your news sources people!
Oh, and Anthony, for another lying meme please look at MidAmerican Energy’s investment in wind – 20% of their electricity is now wind, going to 25% and not a rate increase since 1995 and a promise for no rate increases until at least 2014. It can be done, but I guess California can’t do it (only hearty midwesterners can).
This Greg Craven and people and scientists with a mentality like his want to force us to make this world even colder than it already is, less Co2 than it has, to me, NO THANKS!
Warmer is a better world. More co2 makes a better world. More plants, more food, less suffering. Unfortunately, I really don’t think the next degree will ever come in this millennia irregardless of the co2 level, it does all depend on the sun’s output and our distance from it which is going nowhere fast.
I guess the polite way to portray his clear state(ment) he has made sure we know so clear is just “loose marbles upstairs”.
“The meaning of communication is the response it elicits in the listener.”
I joined others trying to debate with Craven when he published a long series of YouTube videos. He was preaching and, as is usually the case with preachers, the more emphatic he became, the easier is was to wedge open the logical holes in his points.
When he became frustrated, many of us were summarily barred from further posting on his threads. Many of us.
It is therefore interesting to hear about communication and what it elicits in the listener. Craven might reflect on this.
Or, rather, no he shouldn’t.
As he has said, his priority should be to spend more time with his family. Give up his emotionally-driven campaign. He will be happier. The scientific arguments will progress more effectively without the minor distraction that has consumed a disproportionate amount of his life.
If Craven wishes to be taken seriously, he needs to stop talking. Every time he opens his mouth, all he achieves is changing whichever foot is in there.
There’s so much that’s so wrong, it’s hard to know where to start.
He’s willing to wade into battle and fight to the death for his conviction that every human on the planet, from the arctic circle to the Sahara desert, quite impossibly, is living in the most ideal climatic conditions their area could possibly achieve or has ever achieved, and that a change of a few degrees either way will spell the doom of everybody. That conceit alone borders on lunacy, and that’s assuming that the IPCC’s worst nightmares are true.
Then there is his bizarre conviction that people make the best decisions through fear, terror, and panic. If that were true, hospitals would hire gunmen to shoot at surgeons performing brain surgery and the FAA would post Al Qaeda members in the cockpit to help the pilots concentrate.
Finally, we get down to his idea that scientists should act as propagandists to fire the visceral emotions of their audience, instead of the intellect. I think the last time that was tried on a wide scale was the Nazi eugenics movement, or perhaps when Aztec priests convinced everybody that if they don’t carve out the beating hearts of thousands of captives every year, the sun would go out.
The global warming crowd already has Hollywood spokesmen lined up around the block. If they turn all the scientists into spokesmen and agitator/propagandists then who is left to trust? It’ll be a pyramid organization of salesmen from top to bottom, just as blindingly obedient to an unthinking orthodoxy any a crew of stone masons laboring for the Pharaohs.
If Mr. Craven is so inclined, he can go work his little heart out on that pyramid, but most of us don’t want to be enslaved in the crazy scheme and instead are going to sip some Margaritas, double check the numbers, and question the heck out of a giant pile of unfounded assumptions.
I thought the science was settled. Sorta like the snow in my backyard. So now we have a cheerleader entreating that august body for more schneiders, jones, manns to throw under the bus as it careens down the decline. More popcorn, please.
“But there comes a time in the last stand for every single support troop, no matter how far removed, to pick up a weapon, come down into the fray, and fight to the death for what they stand for. To charge into the face of annihilation itself and fight with their teeth, tearing out the jugular of their enemy with their bloody mouth if they have no weapons left. That time is now.”
This is just the sort of speech probably given before the charge of the Light Brigade, heroic, and a complete disaster.
“The reputation of the British cavalry was significantly enhanced as a result of the charge, though the same cannot be said for their commanders.” Of course the enemy whose throats are about to be ripped out, are perfectly entitled to reciprocate and then some, so one should not complain when one’s nuts are served for dinner. I could also go on about whether the cause is 100% correct, that uncertainty just doesn’t exist, and that the “enemy” also has an opinion. But, unable to accommodate opposing arguments, we’ll just blow them up and rip out their throats. Just the sort of folk to send your kids to – to prepare them for life.
CAGW crowd is now somewhere between anger and bargaining.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model
You certainly seem to have upset those alarmist teenagers over at Global Warming Superheroes blog:
http://globalwarmingsuperheroes.com/bad-guy-of-the-week/bad-guy-of-the-week-anthony-watts/
It’ll be fun to watch people like this go mad when they realize the game’s over.
So there’s no place for “science” in science anymore? Only hopes, dreams, feelings, and emotions? What would Spock have to say? 😉
I am for a fairer world, people do die in their millions from grinding economic poverty, religious and cultural persecution, armed conflict, gansterism, I have seen it for myself, and on occasion openly wept, I have felt as desperate and angry as Mr Craven, and questioned the purpose of our pointless existence.
What I cannot figure out is what these people want us all to do! They espouse “Climate Fairness” but they have not thought this through.?
It might appear to be a good idea for a transfer of funds from “rich” countries to “poor” countries, I even naively have thought that way myself from time to time, but having lived and worked in Third world “poor” countries I know that these countries governments are nearly always Gangsters masquerading as politicians.
The UN and IPCC is full of such people, and if you give them “Climate Fairness” money they will steal it for themselves and consequently increase their power and further reduce the freedom of their population, so the “poor” will likely become poorer.
However I have never yet seen anyone die of climate change and I suspect I never will.
I thought Craven was retiring from the public life, and building an eco-Ark or something?
His retirements last less time than Brett Favre’s.
“The meaning of communication is the response it elicits in the listener
From Webster’s dictionary:
Pronunciation: \kə-ˌmyü-nə-ˈkā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : an act or instance of transmitting
2 a : information communicated b : a verbal or written message
3 a : a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior ; also : exchange of information b : personal rapport
4 plural a : a system (as of telephones) for communicating b : a system of routes for moving troops, supplies, and vehicles c : personnel engaged in communicating
5 plural but sing or plural in constr a : a technique for expressing ideas effectively (as in speech) b : the technology of the transmission of information (as by print or telecommunication)
Craven has been seeking to brainwash our kids into believing that climate scientists hold both the diagnosis of a world wide calamity and the prescriptive cure for prevention of the same.
He has sought to profit from this by selling a book, as well as sought power in the public square to impose policies on all of us, and particularly against skeptics of his claims.
He is wrong on both counts, as well as a profiteer, and deserves any honest attack he receives.
That he is pathological is beside the point. He is seeking to harm us by turning his ideology into law. Stopping him by telling the truth about him is perfectly acceptable.
Steve Mosher is something who has demonstrated his commitment to truth. Craven, not so much.
Even Goebbels, a well known master of propaganda, knew that “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
May I raise a subject which relates to the wider subject of science versus intuition?
The sunspot count would seem to be inflating, with tiny specks now contributing to the SIDC score. The data series stretching back some 4 centuries is a useful resource in any hypothesis linking solar activity and climate, but only if the scoring method is consistent. I have just discovered a site – http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50 – where the author has launched a competing “Layman’s Sunspot Count”, using the public’s intuition to recalibrate the last few years of the sunspot curve. (Compare the sun’s spectacularly pox-ravaged face of 2001 with today’s minor zits and you’ll get the point. Back then the score was c150; today c25. The mark-one-eyeball sees a decline much more than five sixths.)
Intuitive feel – honest observation – is the first step in scientific method, leading potentially to a provable repeatable causal relationship. Our friend Craven has it back to front, calling for an end-product of ’emotional aftertaste’. Dodgy data at the start of the process is inimical to science. Of course, progress in astrophysics will not be seriously hamstrung by a skewed sunspot count which is, after all, merely a symptom of the underlying physics. But unpolluted facts are helpful in our quest to resolve this Great Global Warming Debate.
But for many of the people that need to be convinced the displays of passion undermine trust in the science.
Then I expect in your future, proferred diatribes attempting to validate GISTEMP against the onslaught of disagreement that you will be a little less emotional.
Always be careful arguing with an idiot, once the dust starts to fly, it is hard to tell who is who.
I missed the original post on Mr Craven’s speech but what is most interesting is that he felt comfortable emoting in this way all over what was presumably an audience of scientists.
I would have expected him to have been laughed to scorn by his audience but the fact that he wasn’t surely says much about how some scientists nowadays perceive themselves, their standing and their profession. (Which also ties in rather nicely with John A’s previous post on Climategate and what it reveals about science.)
Of course, eventually there will be a price to be paid for consenting to become the factotums and enablers of such emo-kids and their masters, and I would bet it’s one that scientists won’t like very much.
OK, we shouldn’t mock the afflicted. But I think he urgently needs to discuss all this stuff with his shrink.
The problem is that “scientists” like him are way more dangerous than a bit of extra CO2 or a fraction of a degree warming.
Let me make two quick points, points which may seem contradictory, but are not.
First, Craven really is suffering from a type of mental delusion. Most of us — perhaps all of us — do so to one amount or another, but Craven has a really strong case of it. I suspect that he is a nice guy, a good father and an excellent teacher. I have personal friends who are equally intelligent and nice but who suffer from the same CAGW meme. Given time, he will almost certainly have a spontaneous recovery and rejoin the ranks of the rational, perhaps even with his mind (like a broken and then healed bone) that much stronger at the point of fracture. I wish him the best.
Second, Craven, like the rest of those seeking to reorder and rebuild mankind in their image, is dangerous. He is a well meaning but crazy man. Think of a person convinced that “the children” have been replaced by alien pod people and is determined to burn out the local day care center with two gallons of gasoline and a flare gun. He has every right to any craziness he desires, but in this case he espouses a solution that will kill millions. I wish us all the best.
There have been scientists of this caliber before, scientists who devoted their lives to advancing infinite power for a chosen few and death for the rest of humanity.
Alfred Rosenberg and Josef Mengele come to mind.
It’s not clear that Craven really understands what he’s advocating. James Hansen does understand.
Wow, what a mixed up mind (not you, Steven, the other guy with the hat).
On one hand scientists are supposed to be guided by “As a scientist, here’s my understanding. As a citizen, here’s my hope, my vision. And as a mother, here’s my contingency plan, here’s my lifeboat.”….
The conduct of science has forever seemed to me more like a general commanding troops to peform exercises with surgical precision. The important part is to avoid the emotions of the mother and to be efficient, effective, driven by a clear objective and experienced enough to achieve it, with appropriate hardware and personnel support.
This guy seems the type to order tanks with one forward gear and 10 reverse gears in case of attack from behind. (The lifeboat?).
One of the most important tasks of the senior scientist is to choose capable colleagues and trainees; and to train them to ensure succession of the cherished ideals of the science and the method.
Much like Dr. Kealey, Craven and his ilk are basically asking scientists to drain their public “trust account”. Whether this — throw the kitchen sink — approach brings warmists success in their agenda; it surely will bankrupt the trust that the public has for scientists.
If scientists are as craven as Craven wants them to be, then scientists are like lawyers, which is only half a tep short of politicians.
David L @ 3.49:am
Spock would raise his eyebrows slightly and say, (in that wonderfully bemused and withering tone reserved for human foibles) ‘Fascinating…………….’
I have found emulating him great fun on occasion.
I remember this guy now, saw one of his videos after Craven Attention (part 1) but I just skimmed that post so didn’t make the connection. He’s just another example of a warmist glossing over the weaknesses of the AGW science and resorting to philosophy and the Post-Normal Science/Precautionary Principle to try and talk people into accepting AGW. I think we can expect to see a few more people with this type of argument for AGW coming out of the woodwork.
Craven has a book to sell, you know.
Brad says: “Isn’t Craven simply a hgh school teacher and not a real driver of any real global warming science? Let’s leave this guy alone, he seems a bit disturbed and not worth your time…”
Yes, but we expect better even of HS science teachers. Imagine the bias in his classroom presentations. He is indoctrinating, not teaching. Not only is this a great disservice to his students, but he is tarnishing the credibility of HS science teachers everywhere. Perhaps he should consider a career as an environmental lobbyist. I don’t want him teaching my children.
Bill DiPuccio
Science Teacher
Emotion, advocacy, expletives, heated arguments, and insanity have no place in science. However, that’s what we get from the AGW crowd in spades. Maybe that should tell them something about their “science” (or “climsci” as I disparagingly call it).
Wow!
For a moment, I thought I was reading a pep talk Osama would give to a suicide bomber.
This guy is scary!
I’ll stick to what I’ve always said….
….encourage them to do more, be more active, speak out even more
..make more movies
The more exposure they get, the more people realize what they really are
There is IQ and then there is EQ. While the guy seems to understand that he is a “pathological overtalker” – he doesn’t understand that communication is a dialogue – not an exercise in broadcasting with a stronger and stronger signal. Wait until he tries this approach with his teenagers. Using more strident terms, speaking more loudly, more quickly and interrupting tend to make people tune out. Sometimes speaking sparingly and whispering are the best way to get people to listen.
One other point (beyond my disappointment in AGU in providing a platform for an unabashed call for a PNS approach to science) is that it is disingenuous to have scientists trade on their reputation for dispassionate analysis of data and observation yet send a message that goes well beyond that. People (the listeners) expect a message rooted in your credibility – otherwise they have to understand which ‘hat’ is being worn to be able to assess the information provided. Witness James Hansen – he is doing NASA untold damage because people are unclear if he is scientist or advocate in his analysis.
Quoth the Craven:
“[…] for the meaning of communication is not what you intend, or the information. The meaning of communication is the response it elicits in the listener. […]”
Huh?!? If I have this straight, then if I see someone about to step in front of a bus (bus coming from the person’s left and me on their right) and my intent is to communicate a warning and I shout, “Penguins! Murder! Clam chowder!” I’d suppose the person would respond by looking at me, the lunatic on the right, while stepping in front of the bus coming from the left. Splat!
My intent was to communicate a warning. I was hoping to elicit a response from the listener to jump back from the bus. Clearly, I failed to communicate my intent.
And let’s say that I was a little better communicator and I yelled, “Look out for that bus on your left!” And let’s say that the person was in a suicidal depression and wanted to step in front of a bus to end it all, and so they do. I clearly communicated my intent, but I didn’t elicit the response I wanted. Communication is about conveying your intent, but even when successfully communicating my intent, I was only left with my hopes and desires for the response to my message. However, I cannot control the response of the listener.
Lastly, let’s say that I am delusional and I imagine I see a bus. I shout to the person on the curb “Look out for that bus on your left! Jump back!” I effectively communicated the information I had, imaginary as it might be, and I clearly communicated my intent. However, the person on the curb could see that my information was worthless and so steped off into the street anyhow. That was not the response I wanted to elicit.
So, what to make of this? Based on the quoted portion above, it just sounds like more of the “we-are-failing-to-communicate-CAGW-since-no-one-is-dropping-everything-to-rush-back-to-the-stone-age” meme. (First time I’ve used that word, meme. There now; lost my virginity.) “People are not responding the way we want them to respond.”
Does it ever occur to the CO2-based CAGW believers that they have communicated only too well, and that many can see there is no bus coming?
Craven: “They no more expected the extremism of my remarks than I did, and they do not deserve to feel any effects of my unfortunate delivery. (And I can assure you that their experience, while unpleasant, was far less unpleasant and surreal than my own, as I watched in horror from within as my unmitigated Papa Bear passion poured forth from my mouth. Please believe me when I say I could not even believe what I was doing, even as I did it.)”
Is there a Doctor in the house?
C.M. Carmichael says:
December 30, 2010 at 4:19 am
Always be careful arguing with an idiot, once the dust starts to fly, it is hard to tell who is who.
In my field we say: “If you wrestle with a pig……… you can’t avoid getting dirty.”
…and so said the true believer! What century is this preacher from? His hell is freezing over and he still won’t give up the ghost.
So this idiotic excuse for a scientist says this about himself: “I am painfully aware that I am a pathological overtalker and can’t be succinct to save my life.” Then in the next breath expects you to take pity on his poor communication skills and in essence provide forgiveness and patience, as if he were a student on an IEP in need of classroom accommodations and modifications. To wit, “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…”
Tell you what pin head. Be disciplined and principled yourself before you ask of others this behavior you currently do not possess. And to be sure, I speak not as a citizen. I’m a special ed teacher and give no quarter to my students. The pathetic “treat me with deference because of my faults” pleading you uttered out of your mouth is never allowed on the tongues of my students.
Craven’s mistake is with his premise that emotional response is a better way to deal with the challenges of the world, be they natural or human-caused, than rational thought is. History tells us otherwise. The scientist can trust that a solution to a problem is more likely to be found when facts are analyzed in a logical framework. Operating first from what your heart wants and ignoring the research at best gives a 50:50 chance of being right. From a practical standpoint he’s offering suboptimal advice.
It is notable that the Great Communicator’s website has many different ways to send him money (including buying his book), but no forum for debate of his Great Communicator’s Insights.
For him it is clear that communication is a transmit-only process. Transmit the lolly that is! I call him a shyster.
Brent Hargreaves says: “Our friend Craven has it back to front, calling for an end-product of ‘emotional aftertaste’. Dodgy data at the start of the process is inimical to science. ”
Yes. One reason why he does not realize he has bad data is that much of his argument re CAGW is based on appeal to authority. Go to his web site, look it over. At several places he discusses how to tell whether information we gather is correct, and leans to the idea that the scientists who are members of major scientific organizations must be correct because, after all, they are members of major scientific organizations. I prefer to look at the data and how it has been analyzed. A hobo who wanders up to me with a cogent argument on any subject is better than a PhD with adjusted data and idealized models.
Craven’s advice on what to do in the last stages of the battle is good advice for the scientists who know that AGW/CO2 warming is a crock; and for the faithful adherents of this blog. Rip some throats people.
Seems like he has been studying the speeches of Goebbels (Total war, 1944), and Hitler’s defence of Berlin – the fighting to the last drop of blood; it’s all there. Will he next be advocating a modern form of the Nuremberg rally, with scientists in white coats leading masses of climate youth beating the drums of Mother Gaia?
Craven has built his reputation on a video with the scam artist’s title “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See”. Enough said of his lack of integrity and his worthless bogus scare.
The fact that he is allowed to be prominent in a warmist hugfest tells us more about the gullibility than the “science” of those people.
When a Scientist give opinions instead of evidence, is he still doing science? or just using a distorted version of the “appeal to authority” argument? Everything a scientist does is not science, nor does it have to be. But cloaking feelings with a “vale” of science sounds a lot like an attempt to mislead people.
Science is based on objectivity and scientific research is the process of objectively searching for the truth. Religion is subjectively based on what you believe to be the truth. CAGW is a religion based on IPCC scripture. Emotions run high when you shake the faith of the faithful.
Forget Mr. Craven.
Guess who said the following?
“The public, at some point, will realize they were hoodwinked by the deniers. The danger is that deniers may succeed in delaying actions to deal with energy and climate. Delay will enrich fossil fuel executives, but it is a great threat to young people and the planet.”
I find the preceding statement, and the fact that the person who stated it is in a high ranking position in the government science apparatus, much more concerning than anything Mr. Craven has said…
Beliefs require the critical faculties to be turned off, in the same way the AIDS virus works round the imune systen, and every evil virus writer knows the first step in the script is to turn off the antivirus software.
Critical faculties are our only defense. Doubt, need for further proof, admission of error. All these are alien to those with unerring certainty that flows from faith – faith in global warming and man’s calamitous responsibility.
He urges others to move forward from faith to battle. I don’t know if this man is “mad” in a clinical sense, but he is certainly “lost”. I’m not sure brains recover from these intellectual viruses. He may need reformatting.
Red Jeff:
Yeah, all three of them 🙂
WHAT?!?!?!?!!? -sputter-$#@^%$-spit- He’s a high school SCIENCE TEACHER!?!?!?
Quoth the Craven:
“as I have already been significantly misquoted.”
Where would that be, darling? In your head? Mischaracterization is one thing (& one which you seem to go on about for a while, ramblingly and, as far as I can tell, explicitly without examples of such), and misquoting is entirely another. But don’t let me stop you.
“The meaning of communication is the response it elicits in the listener.”
That’s not true… it’s only a “point of view to try on to attempt better communication”… the fact is the “received meaning” is the what the listener interpreted… but there is always the intended meaning of the person communicating the message in the first place. When the intended meaning and the “received meaning” are different, substantially, different that is a problem especially when it’s a serious topic with consequences.
When you finally grow up about communication with others you realize that often it’s your own communication that is the problem, often it’s the listeners way of listening, maybe their terms of reference are different, maybe they disagree so much that they can’t really even hear you, or other communication problems are present; the point is to sort it out and get across your meaning if possible.
Certainly if someone has an emotional conniption fit because of something I say, such as “out of the last 10,500 years, 9,100 of them were warmer than the last 100 years as the Greenland Ice Core Data Set shows” it’s them that is freaking not me. I certainly won’t in that case “take responsibility” for their reaction for they are responsible for their own responses!
Again, Greg Craven gets a basic aspect of life wrong, while it’s important to do your best to ensure that people understand your actual meaning each person is responsible for their own actions, ultimately.
Just over a year ago I pointed out Greg Craven’s mistakes and propaganda mission of using fake science rhetoric and false dilemmas to make a case for doing something about the alleged man caused global warming. It’s time that more people became aware of his aggressive non-scientific-method anti-rational pro-eco-rush-in-before-knowing-all-the-facts-or-causes-terrorforming anti-co2-anti-essential-green-life-nutrient driven soothsaying doomsday activism from dead tree ring entrails.
It’s time scientists and science educators started actually applying the scientific method. It’s time for Greg Craven to learn from Richard Feynman. Read how here: http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/when-scientists-fail-to-present-all-the-known-facts-including-the-ones-that-contract-their-hypothesis-they-become-propagandists-and-bad-scientists
Can someone tell me specifically what will be the dire consequences of projected AGW and when it will occur? Mr. Craven must know that answer which drives him to such emotional extremes, but for the life of me I have not been able to discover what it is.
What is going to happen and when will it occur? It must be substantially different from the usual extreme weather events and climate changes to which humans have dealt with and adapted throughout history. What and when?
Mr. Craven has a responsibility to his students and to the community he serves. He has violated that unspoken trust by his extreme advocacy.
A science teacher may not be a “real” scientist according to some. But he/she is an ambassador of science–the face of science in the classroom. The science teacher is responsible for educating students in the scientific method and the need for objectivity when analyzing data.
Of course total objectivity is an Enlightenment pipe dream, but the kind of advocacy demonstrated by Mr. Craven is a gross conflict of interest and deserves, in my opinion, an administrative reprimand.
My litmus test for objectivity vs. advocacy is the humility to admit that, despite all your research, you may be wrong. Every scientist struggles with this and those that are wise have learned not to become too emotionally invested in their theories.
The arrogance of the Newtonians (18th-19th century) is a lesson in humility. They were certain (with good reason) that Newton had discovered the secrets of the physical universe and read the very mind of God. Then along came Einstein. Perhaps someone will overturn his paradigm as well.
Science is (or ought to be) a humble endeavor.
What is the root of feelings in man made climate change and why was there a need to present a fraud as science. Was it because the public would believe a scientist especially if he worked at NASA and not question the motive and to hide the purpose.
It has all the character of a prostitute luring you into a dark ally to be mugged.
So Ravin’ Craven what does all this mean? Even on the warmist side there are voices
of reason . You are bordering on hysteria. You aren’t getting new converts if you preach:”Sinners in the hands of an angry Gaia!” your unreason does not win hearts and minds. We unwashed proles are not stupid.
How I feel here: “Never interfere with your enemy while he s making a mistake.”
attr.-Napoleon Bonaparte.
RockyRoad says:
December 30, 2010 at 5:29 am
Emotion, advocacy, expletives, heated arguments, and insanity have no place in science. However, that’s what we get from the AGW crowd in spades. Maybe that should tell them something about their “science” (or “climsci” as I disparagingly call it).
========================================================
Naw, he was just blowing through his barriers…… or something.
I wonder if he isn’t aware that emotion is contrary to rational thought?
Emotion—–
1. A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love.
2. A state of mental agitation or disturbance: spoke unsteadily in a voice that betrayed his emotion. See synonyms at feeling.
3. The part of the consciousness that involves feeling; sensibility: “The very essence of literature is the war between emotion and intellect” (Isaac Bashevis Singer).
Maybe climsci-fi?
Beyond discussing Mr Craven’s capabilities as a “Communicator” – I would be interested in knowing who at AGU identified and promoted this guy to Panelist?
What were they thinking?
Scientific research is a process of objecctively searching for truth. Religion is subjective in that it is based on the faith of what you believe to be true. CAGW is a religion based on IPPC scripture. When you shake the faith of true belivers, emotions run high.
pwl, having seen the video you linked to, it seems Mr. Craven also needs educating on the history of WWII.
I would suggest that the more recent WMD debacle quite nicely illustrates the dangers of taking action before the facts are known.
I took the time to read Craven’s words, and didn’t get anything useful or rational from him at all. Was he saying to scientists, “Stick to your science, but when talking to the dummies outside of your particular field, you can proclaim to the world stuff of which you know nothing!” Didn’t he define communications as just an emotional aftertaste? What an idiot!
His problem is that he is talking to himself, and he doesn’t understand what he is saying.
I have serious doubts that Mosher was an English professor. Try a little proofreading before hitting the publish button.
and the transformation of the global warming movement into Pure Religion is complete.
I would not want this guy teaching my kids anything,firstly it appears he can not remember what he’s said and in what talk he’s said it,secondly he advocates leaving scientific results to one side..as a teacher of science and to express your emotion of what you feel,the aftertaste i feel is this guy is left leaning old hippie who thinks emotion, meditation,prayer will see us through.
I hope that no person ever faces a jury that employs the “[snip] the evidence, go with your feeling” mantra that Mr. Craven suggests.
Vince Causey says:
December 30, 2010 at 6:31 am
“Seems like he has been studying the speeches of Goebbels (Total war, 1944), and Hitler’s defence of Berlin – the fighting to the last drop of blood; it’s all there. Will he next be advocating a modern form of the Nuremberg rally, with scientists in white coats leading masses of climate youth beating the drums of Mother Gaia?”
Well, the Greens already have a Volkssturm.
So it’s a little late for a Nuremberg rally.
Oh, Here’s one i didn’t know by now. Craven will like this one:
Red Jeff posted the Superheroes link………and I posted this there:
Xlnt website!!!
“This is the kind of approach needed to undermine the anti-AGW crowd and their scientific scrutiny…..Cartoon Superheroes!!
May I offer one helpful piece of advice? You need a cute little animal that talks to round out the Team. For that, I think a caped penguin, perhaps a baby polar bear would do nicely. That way, you appeal to the little children who don’t really have a clue about the real science, and you cut directly to their emotions.
Ben Santer would be proud of you!!!
The pain of increased taxes through cap & trade will be softened knowing there are cool looking superheroes on a website somewhere!!”
—————–
I was, of course, being sarcastic, but watch them run with it. I noted that the list of Good Guys included Jim Hansen and Peter Sinclair…..Who’s Peter Sinclair???
“Peter Sinclair is a Midland resident. He recently completed a training seminar led by former Vice President Al Gore, author of the global warming book “An Inconvenient Truth.”
The list of Bad Guys is far more impressive….I’d be honored to be amongst their ranks.
This Global Warming Superhero site should provide hours of fun for Josh…:)
Sorry Mosh, but I also think focusing on the buffoonish Craven is a mistake. Oppenheimer is the one who was there at the beginning of the AGW myth and the creation of the IPCC. He and Schneider were both early propagandists for the cause even before the science was in and knew that they had to wildly exaggerate doomsday scenarios to get people’s attention. Craven’s hysteria results from his taking their propaganda at face value. Oppenheimer and his ilk know they are frequently feeding people misinformation, but Craven doesn’t have a clue.
Oppenheimer in the speech linked above deftly expropriates C. P. Snow’s work and claims to improves upon it which, unsurprisingly, makes it fit nicely into the warmist narrative. The implication is that Snow would agree with the improvements, which is an eminently debatable assumption. I think Snow would be horrified by what these people have done in the name of science. People like Oppenheimer are the real danger and should be questioned energetically and exposed wherever they choose to speak.
Obviously Craven craves attention and any further commentary about him or his views is a waste of time. He is an agitator and the best response is none. However, his comments are appropriate in the context because it was at “The 2010 Stephen Schneider Global Environmental Change Lecture”. Schneider was a very important player in the corruption of climate science from beginning to end. As Wikipedia notes “He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II IPCC TAR and was engaged as a co-anchor of the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) at the time of his death.” What a marvellous bureaucratic title. By this time they knew they were in trouble so this is a fancy title for manipulating what the public hear. It was the theme he pursued all his career.
In 1993 Schneider told Discover magazine, “Scientists need ”to get some broader based support, to capture the public’s imagination…that, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of doubts we may have…each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” The last part is frightening, as are the ideas of his craven disciple.
Here is the real threat: Any pretense of scientific objectivity is abandoned in the name of saving the planet — that is, ‘justice’ for the planet. From here it is a short hop to blowing up children to emphasize your message. And from there it is a short trip to real totalitarian measures: trials for CEO-emitters; take to the streets to shut down a powerplant you don’t like. And from there, it is a short hop to, “Round up the suspects.”
Make no mistake. These people are well down the slippery slope to totalitarianism, and they know it not. Be worried, very worried. But not about the planet.
Craven is an undiagnosed/closeted manic-depressive in a strong manic phase. His comment about the noise in his head being a great stress/horror indicates that he is compulsive in analyzing, thinking, mentally-responding-to the thoughts, gestures, actions, comments, behaviours, possibible motivations of the world around him. He blurts stuff out because he doesn’t control himself or cannot control himself. He probably believes that his minor pathology is character. Let’s give him a break and let him slide into the weeds. His public meltdown is a sign of an interior, self-destructive problem exacerbated by his public profile. He is is own worst enemy. We aren’t needed.
Mr Craven appears to be experiencing the emotion of fear and attaching climate change as the reason. It’s quite difficult for people with anxiety disorders to separate ‘real imminent danger’ from ‘perceived imminent danger’.
Regardless of ones opinion as to the veracity of climate change science, climate change does not pose an imminent danger. The fact that Mr Craven talks about ‘preparing a lifeboat for his family’ would indicate that he perceives an imminent danger.
He can’t understand why members of AGU are failing to act as though there was an imminent danger.
Somebody could get an A !
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
Shakespeare
Frankly, his message scares me, as a citizen AND scientist, deeply, for our society.
Craven’s rant does seem extreme. SM says: “Personally, I want scientists to keep their science hat on at all times.” I’m not sure that is humanly possible. I do think scientists need to be clear when there are expressing opinions outside their area of expertise. Hansen’s scientific work is very valuable. But his opposition to cap and trade is just his opinion. Linzden’s iris theory is distinct from his adoration of the free market.
Beware, psychological research shows that people don’t generally make decisions rationally.
Therefore, ~”don’t say what you can prove, say what you feel.” QED
And as long as you never let yourself “feel falsified” – as per Kealey – you will be a “great scientist” and never be wrong!
Man, I never imagined that when young children throw fits about getting what they want, they were thinking what Craven and Kealey have just disclosed.
R. de Haan says:
December 30, 2010 at 2:35 am (Edit)
Steven, I really admire your approach and the factual analysis of Greg Craven’s presentations
But do you realize you’re taking on a complete crack pot?
The entire exercise is an absolute waste of time if you ask me.
######################
I dont see it as “taking on” a crack pot. Greg had a complaint that I “mischaracterized” his comments. I think there’s a fair case to make there.
I put it to the jury. I do note with irony that he fails to realize the inherent problem
in “reader response” type theories of meaning. So, basically I have no problem saying that I got his exact words wrong. I’m note sure that matters gien the other things he said. Also, I like to demonstrate the pathologies of certain types of thinking. I dont mean that in a medical way. I mean that in a rhetorical way.
Craven thinks that if scientists speak with passion about their terror of the future
that everyone will respond with the same emotional aftertaste. They won’t. They don’t.
So by illustrating where this kind of thinking ends up, one hopes that others won’t be tempted to go down the same path.
theduke says:
December 30, 2010 at 8:50 am (Edit)
Sorry Mosh, but I also think focusing on the buffoonish Craven is a mistake.
#
I think I can make the case that if you start down the path Oppenheimer lays out, you end up with a good possibility of increasing the number of Cravens. But Cravens with credentials. So the precautionary principle would dictate that people should go down the oppenheimer path.
But I’m giving you a glimpse of where I would take this
KPO says: December 30, 2010 at 3:12 am
‘This is just the sort of speech probably given before the charge of the Light Brigade, heroic, and a complete disaster. ‘
Not at all, the orders on the intended location of the charge were both unclear and probably also miscommunicated. There may have been a dispute between Lords Lucan and Cardigan as to the sanity of the order from the C in C but Cardigan obeyed his senior officer and led the charge from the front. There appear to have been no blustering speeches about heroism or passion at all; more like sang-froid and the ordinary heroism of professional soldiers going about their business, despite the odds and probably in full knowledge of what was about to be done to them. Napoleon, or one of his marshals, is supposed to have said at Waterloo that the British cavalry was the noblest in Europe but the worst led. Seems like nothing had changed in the intervening 39 years.
On the other hand, Craven’s disturbed outbursts are those of a neurotic unable to control his own anxieties and terror of life; the battle metaphors he uses are hysterical and ridiculous or else some form of projection of his inner desires, like the sick10:10 video showed us all only too clearly. The only comparison with the Light Brigade is the issue of irreversible and utterly foolish actions being taken as the result of false and incorrect assumptions.
[snip – please do not repost newspaper stories in entirey – copyright issues – moderator]
Re: my previous post
I didn’t!
Didn’t you notice the “dash bars” I used for separation? Those were carefully chosen excerpts, not the entire stories. You could have followed the links and checked, although I do realize due to time constraints you might have chosen not to do so.
Look, here’s the copy-and-paste of my post. Examine it carefully, see if you wish to reconsider your decision.
—————-
From brad on December 30, 2010 at 2:37 am:
Follow the money.
Des Moines Register, December 29 2010:
No need for more wind power, but a tax credit (read subsidy) is involved so they will go for it anyway. Selling of the excess will be made easier with a new transmission line, whose cost will be paid for by all users (which likely will be listed as an additional “fee” or “user charge” rather than a rate increase).
Globe Gazette, March 9 2010:
So, they don’t need the wind power, but there’s a tax credit involved, they can sell the power, and charge all their users to help facilitate the selling. Meanwhile they need more base load capacity, of a less carbon-intensive variety thus they’re looking at nuclear, which strongly indicates that wind power is not considered base load. And the mentioned study will be paid for by a “not a rate increase.”
Conclusion: Even hearty Midwesterners can’t do wind power, profitably and on its own without government help.
Newsflash, that is not a lying meme.
“Fair”? “Justice”? These are no more than “Humpty Dumpty” words.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’ (Through the Looking-Glass – Chapter Six)
All these folks who want “fairness” and who haven’t gone broke yet haven’t figured out that the skin for fairness is going to be taken from their hides.
Better get ready for some “potatoes and point”, that is, if you are able to find a potato in the market place.
As for Craven, it should be obvious that he has long since gone off at the deep end. He would have made a great toy for me when I was in high school.
Those who begin lose an argument usually resort to emotionalism as a last defence, its natural. When logic and rational reasoning fails yet the protagonist cannot admit error or cannot realign those things they hold to be true then the backstop has always been the archaic mind, this archaic mind functions on the base instincts of anger and rage and pride.
The human mind has evolved from the lower to the higher state over aeons, logic and reason and rational thought has taken over in large measure from the archaic mind and yet when the modern higher mind fails it is the archaic mind that takes over. When deeply held beliefs are challenged in a rational way and the believer cannot relinquish or modify these beliefs through the higher mind then we see the archaic mind step in and take over the response, this it sees as an attack and responds in an archaic manner.
The human mind has only recently evolved the higher functions of the rational logical mind and the archaic mind is still all too easily invoked during stress. Perhaps the best way to approach the CAGW cult is to allow them to fall back on the archaic response, the more rational observer would then be more willing to ignore and discount whatever they next bring to the table.
The picture says it all.
They didn’t invent those jester hats to denote wisdom.
Brad says:
December 30, 2010 at 12:14 am
Isn’t Craven simply a hgh school teacher and not a real driver of any real global warming science? Let’s leave this guy alone, he seems a bit disturbed and not worth your time…
The problem is that ipcc “Climate Science” itself is at least equally distrubed, and in at least the same way Craven is: exampled by relentlessly trying to directly instill fear and panic [“aftertaste”] – abetted by the high sounding and “feeling”, but irrational and manipulative, Precautionary Principle – into everyone available as essentially one of its necessary means and even the eventual “proof” of its completely manipulative allegations, right where the rubber meets the road for a dedicated Propaganda Op, that is, in terms of being able to convince the target groups to do what it wants by totally unscientific and irrational means.
As I’ve already tried to tell Craven, his derangement is a “Mini-me” to “Climate Science”, where the means [thought control] are the same as the ends [thought control]. In Craven’s case, it is ~”don’t say what you can prove, say what you feel”, or else you won’t really ever measure up to Craven’s alleged enlightenment and altruistic heroism, which we can probably also be sure is defined specifically by Craven’s CAGW fervor and CAGW’s directives. And it wouldn’t just stop there, were Craven to get want he wants concerning CAGW, imo, because by now Craven is essentially a hard-wired Malignant Narcissist, where getting what you want never ends.
Mouth working faster than the brain.
Like many believers, this is actually a pretty likable fellow in person or when he is in his element among his friends. His videos are misguided, but ultimately quite entertaining all things considered and I will admit to the odd chuckle at his attempts to be funny.
However, in writing when people tend to be more honest about what they feel, his true colors shine through. His is a passionate and devout believer. Like most religious followers, his cordial tone and easy going personality evaporates when challenged by some one unafraid to call him out. Then the classic vocabulary of the alarmist like “misrepresent” (oops did I misrepresent his words???) are rolled out when others comment on his comments – heaven forbid a critic discuss what he said in writing!
He may seem friendly, but people like this are the ones selling us out for a cause that cannot be falsified under a false scientific premise.
@Cassandra King says:
December 30, 2010 at 11:52 am
Thank you Cassandra, that’s a very convincing interpretation.
Steven Mosher says:
December 30, 2010 at 10:49 am
Craven thinks that if scientists speak with passion about their terror of the future
that everyone will respond with the same emotional aftertaste. They won’t. They don’t.
=====================================================
Correct-a-mundo
They will label them as kooks.
Craven has just spent too much time in academia and not enough time in the real world. Plus, he had a captive audience that day, and was putting on a show. Trying to act more concerned than they were, and trying to get more attention for himself.
Lose screw, nut job, and three fries short of a happy meal……………
“Release the krak…pot!”
Bill DiPuccio says: “…Science is (or ought to be) a humble endeavor.”
You’ve hit the nail on the head, Bill, and so hard as to be almost off-topic. All teaching should be accompanied by a level of humility. I recently had an opportunity to observe a humanities lecturer at a major university. His self-satisfied smirks, his professorial posing, and his air of total certainty revealed far more hubris than intellect or learning.
That’s what is destroying science-as-once-we-knew-it. From the spittle-spewing climate crackpots to the man-made warming messiah wannabes, the missing ingredient isn’t intelligence or knowledge or even good intentions. It’s humility.
The guy with the funny hat needs to wear a purple gown and start preaching sermons from the pulpit. Substitute any one of the many Gods we have for AGW and hes found his vocation.
Peter says:
December 30, 2010 at 7:43 am
I would suggest that the more recent WMD debacle quite nicely illustrates the dangers of taking action before the facts are known.
Yes, Saddam Hussein would certainly have been better advised to find out that he didn’t really have WMD’s, before he refused to fully comply with U.N. res. 1441’s ultimatum, which required Saddam to fully comply with the U.N.’s next WMD inspection, or face “serious consequences”; which Saddam then recieved when he managed to induce the “Mother of all Inspections” by not allowing the required full fact-finding by the Weapons Inspectors, making an invasion of Iraq actually necessary to determine “the facts”, given that nearly all of the Military Intelligence world wide also indicated that Iraq had the WMD’s and was therefore a “significant threat” to the U.S. according to the Bush Doctrine’s reformed National Security Policy following the 9/11 terrorist attack.
In other words, as to the need to determine the facts prior to action, actionable Military Intelligence instead often cannot and does not determine “the facts”. But in the case of the prohibited Iraqi WMD’s, it almost looks like the World’s Military Intelligence also might have been good enough even for Saddam Hussein, because, regardless of his reasons, he certainly acted like he had them!
And, btw, the U.N., etc., is currently having the same weapons inspection problem in regard to the strongly suspected Iranian nuclear weapons program, which is prohibited by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which Iran has signed and which allows weapons inspection by the U.N.’s IAEA, but which Iran is not fully complying with.
[As you also might recall in the case of the Iraqi WMD situation, the U.N.’s weapons inspection res. 1441 was in turn based upon Saddam Hussein’s 1991 Gulf War I surrender agreement following his invasion of Kuwait. But by simply physically preventing access to the Inspectors, Saddam had already managed to completely halt these weapons inspections for the ~3.5 yrs. previous to res. 1441, hence once again forcing Military Intelligence to be the only way to try to find out about Iraqi WMD’s, which it also looked like Saddam Hussein was hiding.]
RichieP says:
December 30, 2010 at 10:54 am
“The only comparison with the Light Brigade is the issue of irreversible and utterly foolish actions being taken as the result of false and incorrect assumptions.” You are correct, probably not the best example on my part, but you get where I’m going, plus you said it better.
James Allison says: “The guy with the funny hat needs to wear a purple gown and start preaching sermons from the pulpit….[trim].”
Based on WikiLeaks, he’d fit right in at the Vatican. No comment on the hat.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/12/10/wikileaks-vatican-promised-to-lobby-for-climate-change-agreement/
BTW, Steven, this is an important thread, in my opinion. You’ve turned over the AGU rock and let us see what scuttled out. It ain’t pretty. Well done, once again.
I agree. Ignore him, because placating him has obviously only made things worse for everyone. (How ’bout a little empathy for those kids in his class…p.s.!)
This guy has learned this behavior and as many have said, he needs serious help. Can anyone ‘see’ that he uses ‘false intellect’ ~ or, a ‘guise’ of intellect, rather… to keep others ‘off balance’ ?
Craven’s ‘rants’ are ‘rants’ providing instability rather than dialogue. I also can’t help but ‘hear’ his grandiose thoughts when he talks about ‘absolving’… What leaves a nasty ‘aftertaste in THIS citizen’s mouth’ is his childish ego with which he ‘slaps’ serious guys with. A word for the ‘wise’…. don’t buy this brand of climate ‘hot air’.
But, he must be ‘dealt with’ somehow and I applaud this author for attempting to do that ~ ’cause by keeping yet another charlatan in a classroom will undoubtedly create more of the same. I shudder to think what 100 years might bring… That’s why (with
love and support) you ethical human Scientists do need to gently and firmly stand
while others less than yourselves ~ talk of ripping out jugulars in the hopes of freaking you (and others) out by their deliberately, DELIBERATELY heinous behavior.
Craven has been a Markists’ ‘useful idiot’ for long enough, I suppose. Now he’s been uncovered in this mess and will be summarily relegated to the dust bin of History. Away from all those he could infect. I pray for his daughters, frankly. Wowie Zowie,
next time you feel bad……think of what it would be like to be living under him in his family….. ouch.
Anyway ‘THIS ‘rant” taken up to simply share and add enlightenment where possible…is finished.
C.L. Thorpe
Craven needs to go back to the classroom, erm maybe not..
The problem I have with this emotional over rational response is that we, as a society, have spent many many years trying to approach problems with rational solutions – as they are the only solutions that can be ‘proven’ to work. Scientists and other learned educational types are the ‘implementers’ of this rational technique. To have an educator turned around and go ‘get in touch with your emotional side and dam the rational’ just jars my brain on so many levels and it goes against a basic tenant of how our society operates.
For the AGU to appoint Craver to any position of supposed ‘authority’ in their org indicates that they aren’t exactly behaving rational as well.
@Brad December 30, 2010 at 2:37 am,
Please don’t confuse Craven’s positions with your misunderstanding of economics. Any state controlled health care system can only control costs by restricting (rationing) care, while this may not be officially called a “death panel” it has the same results,
Why the elderly are right to worry when the government rations medical care (The Wall Street Journal)
Entrepreneurs and investors (job creators) do not have the lowest income tax rate in history, they have the lowest since 1931. Please get your facts straight. Oh you can tax them more but that will not solve any of the problems relating to out of control government spending and entitlement programs. Nor will it help the economy.
The myth about using Wind Power without rate increases is due to government subsidies,
How much does the Federal Government spend on energy-specific subsidies and support? (EIA)
The Federal Government spent an estimated $16.6 billion in energy-specific subsidies and support programs in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007. Energy-specific subsidies have more than doubled since FY 1999.
Natural Gas – $0.25 per megawatt hour
Coal – $0.44 per megawatt hour
Hydroelectric – $0.67 per megawatt hour
Nuclear – $1.59 per megawatt hour
Wind – $23.37 per megawatt hour
Solar – $24.34 per megawatt hour
There is nothing magical about the midwest and Wind power. The same energy ignorance exists there as well.
These two passages seem to me to be in stark contradiction. On the one hand he is advocating some bizarre ‘fight’ (against whom, I should ask), and on the other he is claiming to be a part of the only group that ‘thinks rationally’. I find both statements insulting and disturbing.
So that is what squirms under the rock? Apply disinfectant.
Steven Mosher says:
December 30, 2010 at 10:53 am
I think I can make the case that if you start down the path Oppenheimer lays out, you end up with a good possibility of increasing the number of Cravens. But Cravens with credentials. So the precautionary principle would dictate that people should go down the oppenheimer path.
But I’m giving you a glimpse of where I would take this
—————————
Fair nuff. Proceed.
The facts were known,
Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq (Fox News, June 22, 2006)
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results (Wired, October 23, 2010)
Steven, it is very important that you do focus on Craven as the insanity of having a high school teacher who is famous for wearing a jester hat in an idiotic YouTube video at an AGU meeting shows the utter desperation of the alarmists. It also demonstrates that organizations like the AGU have no interest in objective science. I still cannot believe this is happening.
Dear Greg: I hope you make your way to this message.
I am reminded of the replay of the cockpit record of UA flight 585 which crashed just before landing in Colorado Springs. The cockpit voice recorder revealed tremendous restraint of emotion from the Pilot and Co-Pilot. Terse commands were issued, and executed. All for naught. In the last moments, there were expletives, as both fought to regain control of the doomed aircraft. Then silence.
The passengers of this flight, and the public at large, depend upon the rational, calculated execution of protocol from those guiding our fate. Even in the face of certain disaster.
Yet, I understand…
Who can find fault with those who yelled “FIRE!” when in fact, a fire was underway?
EVERYTHING depends on being right. And you are hopelessly wrong.
Particularly given the fraud in the temperature record and the utter absence of certainty in the outcome of the climate, YOUR CALL for alarm is akin to a pilot who sees visions of monsters among the clouds, screams into the intercom, and plunges the aircraft into the sea to escape them.
So, in summary:
Maintain composure.
Get on the right side of this issue – The temp records are fraudulent.
Get rid of the hat – It reveals who you really are.
Does anybody have Craven’s actual resume or specific degree? I suspect he at best minored in Computer Science, since Asian Studies is clearly a B.A. degree and I doubt he got a true B.S. in Computer Science too. I will bet his degree says Asian Studies and he is using a minor computer science to pad his science credentials. Because I have never met a true 38 year old computer science major who only got high speed Internet in 2007.
All I can find online is this,
“Greg holds a bachelor of science with two majors – Computer Science and Asian Studies – as well as a Master’s of Teaching.”
I am skeptical because it does not appear anywhere else online, least of all his own website.
Jeff Alberts says:
December 30, 2010 at 7:54 am
==================
Your comment leaves me wanting:
Thrall us with your acumen.
Craven’s point is a verbose version of the frequented excuse by the left.
“We’re not sending the right message”.
or “Our message isn’t getting heard”.
or “We need to express our message better or differently”
It couldn’t possibly be that the masses heard their message perfectly clear and rejected it.
Craven, the innocent high school teacher, went wading too far into the sea.
Any critisism aimed at him is really no more than yelling at him, “Hey fool, you can’t swim.”
And that hat is not a floatation device.
Craven has no degrees in the physical sciences (BA in Asian Studies and Computer Science) and , as of the past Fall semester, apparently was only teaching one period of Physics, Chemistry and Algebra II.
http://www.chspanthers.org/academics/staffpages/craven/index.htm
I’m quite happy no one this unqualified was teaching my kid physics or chemistry. My condolences to the parents residing near Central High School of Independence, Oregon.
[1] Hey look, why not let that craven clown continue the way he does? Surely the AGU members may become aware of it and convey their disapproval? (or resign in embarrassment?)
[2] Mike wrote in part at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/30/craven-attention-the-sequel/#comment-562482
Hansen’s scientific work is very valuable.
Oh Really? Was that intended to be with a /sarc off?
If not, and just for an example, his gradual “it’s worse than we thought corrections” to global temperature data including to stuff way-way before his birth, and in contradiction to all the other records, are simply outrageous. Check-out this WUWT thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/gisstimating-1998/
The video overlay of 1999 and 2009 flip-flopped is particularly appalling.
The anti clockwise rotation of data since 1880, and diminution of the so-called 1998 “super El Nino” is beyond credibility. I guess Hansen was not pleased by everyone else, (including travesty Trenberth), noting a plateau or cooling or lack of warming, in the last decade or so. Thus, it was a good GISS-idea to chill-off 1998 to diminish that well observed plateau.
“…high school teacher who is famous for wearing a jester hat in an idiotic YouTube video at an AGU meeting…”
I didn’t watch the video and thought the photo was photoshopped.
As a scientist, the emotional aftertaste this guy leaves me with is revulsion. You can actually say this sort of stuff at an AGU meeting?
Hey it’s not like the Cravens aren’t all over the place.
We had one as the Oregon Secratery of State.
While SoS Bill Bradbury traveled the state giving Al Gore’s power point bit to groups and school kids. He even embellished it with some tall AGW tales on how Oregon as been changed.
So Craven ending up on the team with AGU in Cancun is hardly remarkable.
It’s the new norm.
I call it the revenge of the nitwits.
This Craven chap is a nutcase. To suggest abandoning logic, reason and “F%^& your research” is deeply unscientific. But then so is the whole AGW theory- it has absolutely no real basis in the physical sciences whatsoever.
Craven is advocating propaganda and emotion over reason and facts. The truth always wins out in the end.
John in L du B says:
December 30, 2010 at 9:02 pm
As a scientist, the emotional aftertaste this guy leaves me with is revulsion. You can actually say this sort of stuff at an AGU meeting?
Exactly, it’s flat out amazing! And how did Craven, a mere high school science teacher apparently without even a Bachelor of Science college degree, manage to get on the same stage as Hansen, Clum, and Oreskes? Hey, wait a minute! How did those three confirmed anti-science Climate Science lunatics even get on the AGU’s stage?……Oh oh, Houston, I think we have a problem….oops, better not call Houston! By now, thanks to Hansen, and Obama, enc., Mecca could be “the center of the World” at NASA, with Craven’s instructions intercepting all calls so as to get us up to speed on the new, “transformational” role of raw feeling-based “science” in the oh so progressive Post Normal World of Totalitarian thought control.
My Dear Mr. Mosher:
Hm… in other words, the second presentation was a good proxy for the first.
(sorry, couldn’t help it…)
Wouldn’t that require an ability to recognize (and admit) that there is no bus coming…?