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.
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.