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.
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?