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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“They brought in an expert to facilitate nonviolent communication.”
LMAO!
They should have excluded the skeptics and brought in a grief counselor.
One of the sources of confusion is the word “science.” Many speakers naturally presume this word means only hard science like physics, where hypotheses can be answered yes or no, and isolated experiments settle it all. Other speakers have a completely different concept. They are talking about a different animal, softer science, more like economics, where the systems are far more complex, the experiments are in real life with all its complexity, and there are many ideas about which factors were the most important. There may even be arguments about what constitutes a desirable outcome in the first place.
For one side, clear results that we can use are the point. For another side, endless funded-and-interesting investigations managed by my department are the point.
For one side, the proper way to settle the answers is obviously acceptance by the broad community of practical people who get things done. For another side, the proper way to settle the answers has always been the closed-door decisions of the collegial insiders.
And both sides say, “Be reasonable. Do it my way.”
I don’t personally see the sides getting together until after they have first settled what they are talking about. In practice there is more dividing the sides than the stuff we usually talk about. A lot more assumptions are tossing up dust.
Smokey says:
January 30, 2011 at 3:12 pm
“If anything derails this proposed ‘reconciliation,’ it will be the lack of transparency.”
I think transparency in climate science is actually a lot better than other scientific fields. I mean look at all the temperature station and record data that’s available online.
Ken Lydell says:
January 30, 2011 at 3:50 pm
It is your imagination.
“[Reply: No, they’re not. The comments came from the same computer. ~dbs, mod.]”
sorry my fault, by “last onion” I meant the one at January 30, 2011 at 3:46 pm rather than my own post.
Moderate positions don’t sell copy.
Only when climate science drops off the political agendas of the major nations of the world will moderate discussions rule the science again. The political infection needs to be excised from the scientific debate.
This won’t happen anytime soon.
Onion quotes Mosher as follows:
“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.”
Sir, have you lost your grip? As adults, we should know that we are always in what you describe as a post “normal science” situation. If we listen to the Warmista, we are always in a crisis that can be solved only by giving them more of our money. My God, Sir, can you not recognize a con man for what he is? Of course, by definition, in PNS there are no con men, right? The observational fact is that you are being conned.
There will be some on both sides who don’t want reconciliation. The trick is to stop these people from controlling the terms of the discussion.
Theo Goodwin says:
January 30, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Gosh Theo, thank you.
That said, Hell will freeze over before my “solution” is adopted. Your much more practical proposal has legs in that the warmists don’t have to lose face by just doing what scientists are supposed to do in the first place.
I was at the door of the Gulbenkian Foundation this Friday, for the open session. Since I was hungry and, as it came to be, I was sure that the mountain would gave birth to a mousse, I gave up…
Pachauri was there twice sponsored by a bank (B.E.S.) with a great interest in renewables (like the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation) and, knowing what it’s made there, I tought that it was a waste of time.
In Portugal there is an overcost of 2500 milion Euros with the renewables in 2010. 250€ for each person while the public workers lost 5% of their salary. since I cannot fight the big war, I’ll spend my time fighting this small battles.
onion2 says:
January 30, 2011 at 4:12 pm
=====================
Nice strawman onion, did you have fun knocking your own strawman down?
This meeting was nothing more than trying to get the “de-warmers” to come over to their side.
How about the “warmers” move to the middle first, they are the ones that pushed the point spread in the first place.
Ian H says:
January 30, 2011 at 4:23 pm
There will be some on both sides who don’t want reconciliation. The trick is to stop these people from controlling the terms of the discussion.
=======================================================
Ian, I don’t agree at all.
What kind of reconciliation would you suggest?
I believe the science is fatally flawed, this science establishment is fatally flawed,
and the people involved in it are criminals.
This is like the person that committed the crime, now wants reconciliation.
Wouldn’t that be nice.
We should all be able to commit these sort of crimes, and then have reconciliation.
If you call a conference that purports to end a “war” then the only attendees will be those who want to attend, or those who have no intention of ending the war but would lose political face by not attending.
Why no Hansen? Why no Jones, Mann, Briffa, Wahl, Amman, Santer, Schmidt, Hughes, Bradley, Joe Romm? Well I’ll hazard a guess, they are the ones waging the war, and have been totally successful until around 2005 with only minor opposition easily mopped up, and their opponents frozen out of the debate by the MSM.
The moment was ripe for complete victory, everything was set for politicians to destroy our democracies and hand over power to the masters of the list of, “useful idiots” above. And it didn’t happen, and is failing to happen. So they are left wondering why it’s not happening, why control of our economies hasn’t been handed to the environmentalists through draconian laws, why flying for all but the privileged few isn’t banned etc. etc.
At first it was assumed that they weren’t communicating properly, that somehow or other their prognostications of catastrophe had been missed by the politicians and that if they could re-phrase and re-position their arguments the politicians would fall into line and destroy the western economies by decarbonising.
So they re-phrased and re-positioned, but still no response from the politicians. And then the penny dropped. Democracy. The politicians in the western world are put in place by the people, and though an incredible victory for alarmism had been achieved by convincing all but a small number of politicians that Armaggedon was on its way, the people, outside of the true believers in the environmental movements, would not put up with the proposed solutions, the reduction in their standard of living, the loss of opportunity for their children as we close down industries and reduce economic growth and the other obvious deleterious results of turning green (with enforced vegetariansim and other tenets of the environmental faith looming in the wings).
So what do begin to hear from the extremes of the movement? Remove the people, let’s have Chinese style government etc. That was, of course, always the plan, but the “useful idiots” didn’t know.
Here’s the nub. A caterwaul was raised by political types like Al Gore claiming the End of the World is nigh. They used very speculative science to raise the specter of oceans rising 50 feet and drowning cities like Manhattan in a few short years, and afterwards the seas boiling into outer space and killing All Life As We Know It.
As a corollary finding, the caterwaulers insisted that all fossil fuel use be constrained by jacking up prices through aggressive taxation or Thermageddon would destroy the Planet.
The science is settled, they caterwauled, the debate is over, and all scientists of any merit join in consensus with their dire report. Those who disagree are flat earthers, anti-science, and denialists.
Now, after 5 years or more of such hysteria, and the growing realization that none of those things are going to happen, except the jacking up of taxes, some Alarmists are seeking some sort of compromise position. To that end they accuse the skeptics of unseemly and uncivil rhetoric while toning down their own alarmism to lukewarm levels.
The diehard followers of the Thermageddon line are being thrown under the bus. All that loyalty and faith is being rewarded by tire tread marks.
There is consternation in the Alarmist camp. The fabric of their argument/consensus/coalition is unravelling. So now, instead of crying wolf, they cry foul.
It’s pathetic, really. They dug their own graves. They lept in with both feet. Now they want someone else to hoist them back out.
As far as I am concerned, it is about the science, not the “feelings”…. There is no need for reconciliation. That is a Political process, not a Scientific methodology.
Just a few past examples of scientific corruption….. Eugenics used “science” to validate the political ideology. Marxism tried to call itself a “political science”. Lysenkoism used “science” to justify Socialist agricultural policy. Piltdown man was a scientific fraud not publicly acknowledged until long after Dawson died, etc….. and AGW is no different. It has been politicized and publicly funded way beyond what would seem scientifically prudent. The evidence that CO2 is the main driver of global climate changes, is just not there.
So if there is “reconciliation” to be had…. then that would be a Political discussion and not a scientific one….. and if it is to be a Political discussion, then it needs to be framed in that context and the history of the misuse of science and politics presented.
Also…… When people realize that a huge “scientific” fraud has been perpetrated by corrupt scientist taking public funds in return for “scientific” validation of Political agendas….. There ‘ain’t gonna be no steenking reconciliation anyway.
Reconciliation is for politics not science.
Never reconcile one’s self to the perversion of the scientific method.
They have lost?
Dr. Dave says:
January 30, 2011 at 12:34 pm
“the teat of government grants”
Who should fund science? If you expect the free market to do it you are living in a fantasy world. Look at how big Pharma now does things with regard to biologics. Universities do the basic research and drug discovery, set up spinoff small biotech’s to further develop these products, then big Pharma come along and snap the better one’s up to turn them into marketable products. This ignore’s all the ‘blue sky’ research that is the foundation for all this. Even the capitalists devoted to drug discovery are pulling back from the science.
There is no profit in fundemental scientific research so the market won’t do it.
What options are we left with? 18th or 19th century-style hobbyist science by those rich enough to indulge their passion? Charity-based science? I’d prefer my science funded on a much stronger societal basis even if that means it’s paid for by your taxes.
I don’t think Judith Curry is to be trusted. This conference is just an attempt to make the “deniers” look unreasonable and appears to be a giant WOFTAM.
If Curry apologises for the use of the term denier we may have start but personally on this issue I’d trust her as far as I could throw her.
No surrender, no retreat. Declare peace after these crooks are in jail.
[I’m sure you appreciate my fixing your typo, where you typed a y instead of a u in ‘trust’. ~dbs☺]
I am sure that Dr Curry is a nice person, but not surprisingly, like many scientists, she is naive about politics and power. Reconciliation requires both (or all) parties to admit their mistakes. It is not about splitting the difference and somehow ‘meeting in the middle’. It is about starting afresh. The South African Truth and Reconciliation process is a good example – and it didn’t come from agreeing to only partially abolish apartheid.
As PPs have pointed out, what is required is a re-commitment to the scientific method, especially in terms of transparency. I fail to see how this attacks anyone personally, except those who prefer not to engage with the fundamental principles of honest scholarship. Like those who continued to support apartheid, there is simply no way of reconciling with these people.
As for trust – science is not about trust, in fact it is the opposite. If everything is on the table for examination, the issue of trust does not arise. I do not care how trustworthy or untrustworthy a scientist is, but I do care about whether his/her work is available for independent verification.
While there is certainly merit in people getting together face to face, as a way of un-demonising them as individuals, in the end this has nothing to do with science, which is not about social skills.
I sincerely hope that nice people like Dr Curry do not fall for this rather lame bit of sophistry.
Well said Stacey….. I said much the same thing, but longer and more stridently…. Too strident I think. The spam filter ate it…..:-(
Re Mike D.
January 30, 2011 at 5:07 pm
This was an issue long before Al Gore. AIG was 2006, 5 years after the IPCC *third* assessment report.
If anything scientists in general have been amazingly silent on the potential threat of what is happening to the climate.
onion2 says:
January 30, 2011 at 5:51 pm
If anything scientists in general have been amazingly silent on the potential threat of what is happening to the climate.
================================================
Othen than the Nobel, is there any other award for this……………..
In the context of the “war,” the hope was expressed that more moderate voices would emerge in the public debate.
It’s this logic that created “cap and trade.” It was seen as the “moderate” solution.
mixing vanilla ice cream with dog droppings will never make the dog droppings taste good and will ruin the ice cream in the process …
If you are trying to reconcile with liars and cheats you lose your honor and reputation in the process …
The current issue of Smithsonian features an article on the endangered lynx of the mountains of Montana. In general, it’s a well-written piece but contains the following (emphasis mine):
…. The lynx’s future depends in part on the climate. A recent analysis of 100 years of data showed that Montana now has fewer frigid days and three times as many scorching ones, and the cold weather ends weeks earlier, while the hot weather begins sooner. The trend is likely the result of human-induced climate change and the mountains are expected to continue heating up as more greenhouse gasses accumulate in the atmosphere. ….
If the author were to be asked about the source of these prognostications, the answer would most probably contain the words “consensus of scientists.” If you pointed out that consensus has no place in science, she would suddenly find she had something something urgent to do.
Any hour of any day one can find examples of the AGW message comfortably ensconced in every-day writing, masquerading as confirmed truth. If Curry’s and the others’ efforts to repair the communications have success, all would benefit greatly. Good luck!