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.
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.