Since I did not attend Lisbon even though invited and initially accepted, (other business and family obligations took precedence) the very least I can do is to help elevate the discussion. Here’s a report from Dr. Judith Curry, and I urge WUWT readers to read it in it’s entirety. Hopefully Mosh will weigh in here with his report once he’s recovered from the trip. I’m sure Steve McIntyre will be posting on the conference also. Since this is a new topic, and one bound to be widely discussed, I’ve added a “climate reconciliation” category to WUWT. I’ll have some thoughts later. – Anthony
Lisbon Workshop on Reconciliation: Part II
by Judith Curry (excerpts from her blog)
Here are some reactions from the Lisbon Workshop on Reconciliation in the Climate Debate. These are my personal reflections, and include some of the perspectives and statements made by others (without any attribution of names).
The first issue is what exactly is meant by reconciliation, and who actually wants it? Reconciliation is defined (wikipedia) as re-establishing normal relations between belligerents: re-establish dialogue, reinstate balance, restore civility. It is not clear that there has ever been normal relations between, say, the mainstream IPCC researchers and the skeptical climate blogosphere. Consensus building was not seen as having any part in a reconciliation. Rather there was a desire to conduct impassioned debates nonviolently, and to create an arena where we can fight a more honest fight over the science and the policy options.
So who actually wants some sort of reconciliation or an increase in civility? One perspective was that the alarmists shooting at the deniers, and deniers shooting at the alarmists, with a big group in the middle, with both the deniers and the alarmists ruining the situation for reasoned debate about the science and the policy options. Another perspective described the fight as entertaining theater. One perspective was that there is no incentive for conciliation by either side; both sides like the “war.” In the context of the “war,” the hope was expressed that more moderate voices would emerge in the public debate.
The issue of civility and nonviolence in communication was regarded as an important topic by the Workshop organizers. They brought in an expert to facilitate nonviolent communication. This frankly didn’t go over very well with the Workshop participants, for a variety of reasons. This particular group of participants wasn’t very volatile in terms of emotions running high, use of offensive language, or heated arguments. The main format of the Workshop was for groups of 7-8 to discuss various controversial topics. Each group had a different dynamic; the group I was in had some colorful personalities but not terribly impassioned positions on the alarmist-denier spectrum. One table did encompass the entire spectrum, but the dynamic of that group seemed collegial. So the issue of getting skeptics to sit down with alarmists (these were the two words that were generally used to describe the two poles of the debate) and talk politely and constructively didn’t turn out to be a problem. This is partly a function of the individuals invited, who for the most part weren’t too far out there on either extreme and expressed their willingness to communicate by actually agreeing to attend the Workshop.
…
Towards reconciliation
Some principles/strategies that were discussed to improving the scientific debate:
- Acknowledge that there are real issues and we don’t agree on how to resolve them
- Disagreement with mutual respect
- Find better ways to communicate criticism
- Find better ways to admit mistakes without damage to reputation
- Find some common ground, something to work on together
- Find where interests intersect
- Importance of transparency
- Communication engenders trust
- Search for win-win solutions (i.e. both sides work to increase the funding base to collect more paleoproxies).
==================================================================
I urge readers to read the rest in entirety here: Lisbon Workshop on Reconciliation: Part II
“One perspective was that there is no incentive for conciliation by either side; both sides like the “war.””
Actually, I don’t like having social war rained down upon our livelihoods.
It gets personal when agenda goes beyond mere science into policy that punishes those unable to defend themselves or to prepare for even natural climate change.
I do agree that civility as a political solution to the hostilities is in order.
If you want reconciliation then I humbly suggest start by doing SCIENCE and following the SCIENTIFIC METHOD adamantly!
There is always a place for the stuff you mention but it has to come AFTER a recognition that the scientific method must be followed. That is item # 1 and everything else after would be nice to see (less name calling (ie deniers), respectful disagreement etc).
Cheers
I guess I’m the only one who thinks absolutely nothing was accomplished by this.
I don’t think Judith Curry has a clue. Her view is far too naive.
There are a lot of agendas out there and and the “skeptic” term does not encompass all if them.
Achieving reconciliation is only possible if there is a well defined basis of disagreement.
Very disappointed to see Judith Curry’s continued defense of post-normal science. Even the supposedly defensible excerpt she includes is risible and clearly displays Ravetz’s attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the lay public. Yes, human values do accompany science, and should never be set aside entirely: but they should not be within the very matter of science itself. Moral and ethical concerns properly set boundaries to what scientists should or should not do eg ideally to prevent experimentation on prisoners or creating cloned humans as organ farms. Human values should not dictate the meaning of the science itself – and when moral judgments or human values have been intrinsic to the science, things like Lysenkoism or eugenics result. Human values in these cases = ideology. I cannot see much room for reconciliation so long as the two sides don’t even share a common definition of science itself.
If legitimate discourse pro and con becomes the norm, CAGW is dead. It cannot survive the light of day.
Mooloo:
[Sorry about the italics]
You are doing what you are arguing to stop. Proffering opinions as facts.
“The earth is warming”
Blanket statement. Is it? Where? What interval? By whose metric? I agree that the world has been warming over time the last 10,000 years or so, since we had glaciation. Since then it appears to have been cyclical, with ups and downs, and we are now probably facing 30 years of drastic cooling, although this is not 100% certain.
“CO2 is a trace gas with no effect”
This appears to be a straw man—I have not heard anyone with serious scientific credibility say this. As a physical scientist myself, I know one single molecule has an “effect”, though not measurable by anyone. I doubt that the science shows that man produces enough to outcompete the natural sources, from the physical Laws that govern radiation, known since Newton. I am convinced that CO2 releases from oceans follows warming events, based on my knowledge of physical laws. I am convinced that 0.4 parts per thousand of CO2 vs. 0.3 parts per thousand in the atmosphere will not cause a human measurable change in global temperature (even if we all agree on what global temperature is). I am almost convinced that we should be at 1 part per thousand CO2 for the world to be as productive as it can get, but there is nothing man can do to get it to that level.
“The ice is melting”
When? Recently? Has the area, thickness, or extent changed? Is this melting or compaction by local winds? I am convinced that there is a cyclical polar see-saw, as Antarctica has been increasing during times of Arctic decrease and conversely. It appears that Mars has a polar see-saw as well.
This debate is really silly. Maybe even unscientific. Maybe it should be carried out at a social sciences symposium. “Can’t we all just get along?”
Steven Mosher says: January 30, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Wheels are turning
In which direction… backwards or forwards… and for what purpose?
There is a common ground already. It has been there all along.
It is called The Scientific Method. Follow it, and we are on common ground.
-Don’t delete or hide data or methods.
-Don’t use fudge factors.
-Follow the law.
-Stop the propaganda.
-Disband the IPCC.
-Don’t do press releases based on models as if it was the truth.
-Restore the Peer Review process.
-Stop controlling Journals.
Mooloo says:
January 30, 2011 at 2:20 pm
It would help if the sceptic side didn’t deny the obvious
================================================
The obvious, is that no one, not one single scientist, not one single person, on the face of this earth, has even shown that it’s not natural.
If it’s obvious, why so many lies? and coverups?
They’ve had over 30 years to prove the “obvious”, if it’s so “obvious” what’s the problem?
Here’s a brain massage for you MooLoo:
Why are CO2 levels so low, and what makes them drop so dangerously low?
“Confusing the group of scientific skeptics with individuals that are against the policies associated with climate change, and using this as an excuse to ignore scientific skeptics, is to the detriment of actively challenging the science and making scientific progress.”
Curry sets up a false dichotomy here, implying that skeptics are composed of two groups: those who are skeptical of the science, and those who simply oppose the policies. This completely ignores the fact that many skeptics actually originally came from the Warmist side, becoming skeptics only after examining the science. The policies make sense only if you believe Warmist science, therefor once the science is found lacking, the policies are seen to be not only useless, but actually harmful in many ways.
I can see how some Warmists might be interested in reconciliation. I personally think their unconditional surrender would be far preferable.
Bruckner8 says: January 30, 2011 at 2:39 pm
I guess I’m the only one who thinks absolutely nothing was accomplished by this.
Sucker punches sometimes accomplish a result…
The government teat is going to go dry.
If it doesn’t then we will be looking for some new representatives.
If anything derails this proposed ‘reconciliation,’ it will be the lack of transparency.
Catastrophic AGW proponents still refuse to ‘open the books’ on all their data, methodologies and metadata. Until there is complete transparency, such as requiring on-line posting of all methods and data, the alarmist crowd will keep the public alarmed.
There’s a reason they don’t follow the scientific method: money. With transparency, cAGW is falsified, and the money goes away.
I totally agree with DN. This seems like a lot of pointless activity. Probably a good jolly though as I enjoyed my time in Lisbon when I was there.
paulhan says:
January 30, 2011 at 1:41 pm
“As soon as the immortal words “The science is settled” were uttered, it became a zero sum game, i.e. there can only be winners and losers in this debate. The only way that there can be any return to a “middle ground”, is for all scientists and science organisations of a warmist bent to come out and say, forcefully if necessary, that the science is NOT settled, they do not have all the answers.”
Paulhan has driven the ultimate nail in the debate between sceptics and the AGW crowd. The AGW crowd is the source of the conflict. They introduced “The science is settled” doctrine and proceeded immediately to bludgeon all critics. As everyone knows, the idea that “the science is settled” trashes all that science has stood for, all that it has achieved, and all that it might achieve in the future. There can be reconciliation if the AGW crowd will return to the practice of science. At present, the AGW crowd is a political organization using Alinskyite tactics to push a political agenda. And that political agenda will not only hurt the pocket books of all Americans, it will hurt America’s national interests.
In my earlier post, I had not given Paulhan the credit he deserves.
WUWT has attracted a lot of professionals with very keen minds and keen analytical skills.
I suspect most of them have worked in the private sector where their livelihood depended on ‘getting it right’, as I have. That is a powerful incentive for ‘getting it right’.
For example, if any scientists or engineers tried to get away with using much of the biased junk science or junk methods used to ‘prove’ AGW, while working for Toyota designing and building cars, they would quickly be shown the door.
I simply don’t see how something like that can be explained to those who have never really been held accountable for their work, academics, govt researchers, and so on. They don’t have the discipline of caution, to make absolutely sure they are right. Especially before recommending billions of dollars of someone else’s money be spent.
That discipline can only be earned.
And it cannot be ‘faked’ by those who have not earned it.
It is so easily ‘visible’ to those who have earned it, and so ‘invisible’ to those that have NOT earned it.
That’s the real issue here.
How can you ‘reconcile’ that?
The event was organised by advocates of post-normal science. In relation to this, Stephen Mosher just wrote the following
Simply, what happens when ‘normal science’ is a casuality. what happens when values and interests and time constraints disrupt, prevent, subvert, ‘normal science’. What happens? we all know what happens.
1. some people try to replace science with “consensus”
2. Some people try to pretend that interests are not driving decisions.
3. Some people clamor for a return of ‘normal science’
A PNS practioner recognizes that
1. Replaces science with politics
2. is bad faith.
3. is false hope.
Since most people here think that #3 is the option.. ‘just return to normal science’ you have to ask yourselves ‘how’s that working?
You dont control the budgets. You argue that NASA should just return to doing normal science and they say ‘but we are doing normal science?’
and you say, no you aren’t. and they say, ‘yes we are’. And they just keep on doing what they are doing. As I said before, ONCE the line gets crossed, you have no effective apolitical means of just going back. And even if you apply political force, you have no simple path back to normal science, principly because ‘normal science’ is an ideal which really isnt practiced.
So basically when facts are uncertain, when values are in conflict, when stakes are high and when decisions appear urgent, you enter ( like it or not) a post ‘normal science’ situation. That’s just an observational fact. do you want to call that a ‘corruption’ of normal science? thats fine. Climate Science is no longer innocent. re virginizing it aint gunna happen. So PNS is a recognition of that and a decision to work deliberatively rather than unreflectively.
How does one work deliberatively rather than unreflectively? How does post-normal science change the day-to-day work of a scientist?
I worry that the concession a situation may be ‘post-normal’ allows policy makers to influence scientific outcomes. I can’t see what the benefits for science are
A lot of folks here have been throwing rocks at the tent where others were meeting while others were content to ridicule and belittle the good faith efforts of others. Is it my imagination or is intelligent commentary becoming rarer in WUWT comment threads?
Mike D: That war resulted in a form of government much admired and appreciated today. Would reconciliation have been a better option?
That was indeed a result of the war. Another result was the extension of American slavery another three generations, long after it was abolished in the British Empire. Followed by the bloodiest of uncivil wars, one which almost destroyed that last best hope of mankind.
Yes, there is something to be said for reconciliation.
Mooloo you say its obvious it has been warming.But the climate has’nt warmed at any noticeable rate in the last 10 years, its no warmer than it was in 1998,or 2005.And also from 1915-1945 it warmed o.7c or as much as it has from 1978 to present.Also i heard though i dont know if this is true that from 1700-1800 it warmed as much as it has in the last 100 years.So if this is true whats so bad about the present warming.
what a waste of time. The war will continue. Let it.
huh? someone else with the username ‘onion’ posted a few minutes before me? The odds of that????? changing my username to onion2….
just to note the last onion and the previous onion commenter are different people!
[Reply: No, they’re not. The comments came from the same computer. ~dbs, mod.]
The rhetoric will NEVER be turned off – rhetoric is the primary means of silencing critics and is very useful to gather an endless avalanche of government funds…
The very use of the word, “denier” is an example of creating a common enemy that government funds can help “defeat” – “Look! A denier-dragon! Oh, if only Obama could supply me with funds to slay it, why think of the maidens we will save!”
Re latitude
January 30, 2011 at 3:03 pm
There are people who argue the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist or that CO2 rise is probably not human caused. In those cases it’s 100% clear to me that the problem is 100% them – scientists have conveyed these ideas across as well as can be expected but some people just don’t get it.
So I don’t think the fact that people exist who are unconvinced of an idea is evidence that scientists have failed to convey that idea sufficiently and therefore the idea must be shaky and so the people are justified in not believing it.