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.
Werner Krauss is quoted as saying:
“Considering the fact that some have highly influential blogs with many commentators and followers, the image of rather loosely organized tribes came to my mind.”
LOL! No, sir, you had that image before you saw them.
The transparency issue will never be cleared up. In the old days, a theory or work would be slapped down on the table, notes, data, warts and all – alongside an appropriate presentation lecture, published in peer review journals and thrashed about and worked through by diligent peers intentionally (that’s the key word) looking for errors.
In climate science, this just never ‘seems’ to happen within the upper echelon ‘peer’ group – commonly called the ‘team’ – mostly accepting work without serious ripping apart, although I suspect that they make comments about wording to ensure it tows the party line!
The big issue is to re-educate those so called ‘top’ scientists back to proper scientific method and a realisation that defending their work is an absolute pre-requirement. Moreover, such defence is not a personal issue – but a science one.
Ashas been said a hundred times before – if anyone had a drug cure for cancer and slapped down their work on the table as described above, the work would come under the most intense scrutiny. Why should climate science, where the whole world is makinf massive eco-political decisions based on ‘climate science’ be any different. The important point being that detailed scrutiny cannot be undertaken without total disclosure.
Kev;
Clearly!
But a grammarnasty comment: it’s “toes the party line”, not “tows”. Think soldiers, not oxen. (Actually, the origins are probably naval, shipboard, the “Captain’s line”, but that’s too long to go into.)
Brian H says:
January 31, 2011 at 5:50 am
thanks – I had indeed already spotted it – a mental abberation on my part. I really should proof read carefully before pressing post comment!
see – just did it again – aberration is the correct spelling! LOL
It is easy to admit you were wrong about something when you’re looking at yourself over a sink in your own bathroom. It get’s very ‘post normal’ and more difficult if –
a. You’re a newlywed and saying it over the kitchen table to the one you love.
b. You’re a squeeky clean and wet behind the ears post grad at your first real job.
c. You’ve moved up the ladder, and writen a few articles in professional journals, and/or books, on something you’re supposed to know something about.
d. You’ve past 40 and become an AGW Superstar and everybody, just everybody who counts that is, thinks you can walk on water and chew bubblegum at the same time.
Given time and circumstances, there’s just a whole lot of things real successful people can’t do. Really!
I strongly dislike the labels of Normal and Post Normal Science – though I agree with Steve Mosher’s description of the current situation with regards to climate science and climate scientists. The labels suppose generalizations that obscure the facts of the situation under review. Many of the issues that I and many others find disturbing are failures to meet basic conditions of scientific research (not to mention civility). That these failures are compounded by advocacy does not alter the fact that non-transparency and resistance to replication are at the root of much of this so-called “failure to communicate”.
I see no merit and very little basis for attributing crass, unsavory or machiavellian motives to Judith Curry or anyone else involved in the recent Lisbon discussion.
IMO, climate science is plagued by weak science, under-developed scientific tools and measures, poor scientific practices, unrealistic solution sets and politics driven by extremists. If you want to term the latter set of conditions PNS, then so be it but recognize that you are in some regards risking the legitimation of unscientific behavior and bad public policies which are derived from this behavior.
From Curry’s summary:
What the $%&!? What on earth is that trying to say? That sounds like the most ridiculous nonsense I’ve ever seen a trained scientist use for a definition.
So PNS is not an attack, it is an assistance to normal science And PNS’ best use is on managing complex systems? How is this in any way science? It isn’t. Science has a term for unknown or unknowable variables…, they’re called unknowns. There is no reason to fear the unknown. There is no reason to behave as experts on the unknown, speaking to likelihoods we cannot possibly grasp the real chances for. As a scientist part of your job is telling the public what the limits of human understanding are and making people comfortable with the unknown. Experts have a way of making people afraid of the dark. Scientists should be making people excited about finding the light switch.
I was enjoying Curry’s summary until that paragraph, then my interest disintegrated in a most violent fashion.
It would help if Dr. Hansen would moderate his rhetoric, a lot. If I bet he was not at the Workshop, would I win? Is anyone from the workshop prepared to rebuke Dr. Hansen for his inflammatory speech?
The whole concept of “reconciliation” is non sequitur. There is nothing to reconcile when just one party to the conflict is the only combatant. Besides, Dr Curry’s continued and frequent use of a known, vile epithet to describe those with whom she disagrees is reprehensible. This is not the language of someone who seeks to reconcile. Also, I would caution against the increasing acquiescence to the use of such violent language as it establishes a subtle but important bit of misinformation–namely that skeptics deny that climate changes. This is perhaps the single most egregious fallacy that continues to be perpetrated–one of many which makes any concept for reconciliation absurd. I don’t think we have yet seen just how deep the deception went, let alone publicly identified all those involved in it. One must first identify the spread of the infection before beginning treatment.
“Search for win-win solutions (i.e. both sides work to increase the funding base to collect more paleoproxies).”
WHAT?
Exaclty how is that a ‘win-win’ solution? The problem we have had with paleoproxies is that
A) they were put together by people who did not have the slightest idea what they were doing WRT the statistical methods they were jiggering up from whole cloth, or
B) they were put together by sleazy actors who were advancing personal and political agendas through spin, deceit, and outright lies, or
C) both A & B.
We dont need to give those alimentary orifices any more of our money to fund further shoddy, politicized ‘science’. We have paid for too many lies as is. Absent some reform of the system to ensure ethical behaviour on the part of the recipients, there should be no more funding of paleoproxies.
To the contrary, what we need is increased funding for audits of the existing science, to find out where the problems in methodology lie, and to methodically find the lies. It is unconsionable that such audits are largely ad-hoc, individual efforts with zero funding given that the stakes are so high.
Figure out a way to fund competitive science that doesnt succumb to political activism and group think and that is effective at ferreting out the truth rather than conspiring to conceal adverse results and disregard gross uncertainties. There’s your win-win.
Till then, instead of the current 4 billion in funding, not one more dime should be spent on this crap. You want to fund more paleoproxies? Sue the ‘hide the decline’ clan to recover the millions that were spent on the current, inadequate paleoproxies.
At a time when the people who were taxed to pay for the lies of the Team are experiencing tremendous economic hardship, those clowns are continuing to hide adverse results while living VERY cushy lifestyles on the public dime. Increase that? Please.
Jeremy says: January 31, 2011 at 7:00 am
“Postnormal science … What the $%&!? What on earth is that trying to say? That sounds like the most ridiculous nonsense I’ve ever seen a trained scientist use for a definition. “
Postnormal science = science lite … a bit like those school competitions where everyone wins, science lite doesn’t distinguish between truth and falsehood, because truth is subjective, so it would be unfair to reject assertions because you might be selecting assertions based on latent racism, homophobia, sexism or even (horror of horror) a bias against assertions just because those assertions are “scientifically impaired” (i.e. lack of any evidence to support them).
I would remind readers – and the leaders of this “reconciliation” effort of the “Gray Whitewash” Problem.
In a problem of absolutes – and not all problems are black and white! – today’s mass population is being taught that they should “See both sides” and “Understand both sides” and “Listen to your own inner wisdom” as if the truth were somewhere between the two sides, rather than a specific choice between black and white.
Between true and false. Between lies (exaggerations based on feelings about desired outcomes and extrapolations) and impartial scientific analysis of real data.
But, because the public has been led to believe that “The truth is somewhere in the middle” when two sides disagree – rather than “One version of the argument is based on propaganda to be used as propaganda for funding and political control.” they see only shades of gray everywhere.
Not the truth.
(Now, note that NOT all arguments/disagreements are “Black and white” – I could claim that 95% of the observed warming is a combination of natural long-term 450 year climate cycles plus short-term 66 year climate cycles plus observation biases, and only 5% is from AGW CO2 changes. You could claim 95% is from CAGW CO2 “forcings” and we would not have a black and white issue.
But the propaganda being spewed by CAGW activists IS a “black and white” issue.
The resulting CAGW desired policies of early death to millions and economic disaster for billions IS a matter of black and white arguments!
Here’s some middle ground;
When scientists become policy advocates they are no longer scientists and must be fired from any position that receives public funding!
Next; If you want to publish in a peer reviewed journal you should submit your data and code. This should be available on the journal’s website in perpetuity. If you cannot produce your data and code; IT ISN’T SCIENCE. The prominent journals ought to retract quite a few climate related articles on that basis alone.
This isn’t about black and white. The truth obviously lies somewhere in the middle; CO2 must have or have had some effect on the climate, humans release more than is natural . . . draw your own conclusion. But if you want it to be science, you must propose a falsifiable hypothesis, devise an experiment to test the hypothesis, record your data, draw a conclusion and share everything. So far the purported “science” falls far short of that standard.
Now, on to the real problem; the mote that’s been created between science and policy and the defense of the citadel of AGW by certain bad actors;
When people are suggesting we damage our economies wholesale and commit our children and grandchildren to an impoverished future and people in lesser developed nations to starvation and permanent economic impairment we must have certainty as to the science. When our leaders and scientists act as the current crop has (by which I refer to Mann, Jones, Trenberth, Hansen, Schmidt, Gore, Pachauri, et. al.) and claim that they have certainty and that the science is settled, nay more than that attempt to quash any reasoned debate on the topic while holding their data, methodology and the very bastions of knowledge and halls of academia captive like so many conquered slaves; the skeptics be damned to hell if they accept such treatment and go along with the program!
It is only through the recent vitriol toward and sabotage of the esteemed body politic of academia that the debate has (to some extent) been re-opened. AND STILL THE ESTABLISHMENT INSISTS THAT THERE IS NO ROOM FOR DEBATE! (Insisting that the world is still warming when it clearly hasn’t in the last 10 years, and then telling the world your detractors are wrong when they claim the world is cooling is just plain fraud; use the straw man argument enough times and you are actually engaged in deliberate deception.) Further; refusing to acknowledge that your models cannot explain known climatic phenomena (PDO for example) or even current climate conditions is the moral equivalent of the Wizard of Oz. You can almost hear their admonition to “ignore that man behind the curtain over there”. Yet they insist they are correct and must be listened to. That isn’t science; it’s religion.
In the simplest terms possible; if it’s not openly shared and reproducible it’s not science, peer reviewed or otherwise! If scientists cross the line and become advocates their science is no longer to be trusted and they should no longer hold academic standing of any kind.
If the alarmist establishment wishes to continue to insist that they hold the keys to wisdom and denigrate those who carry on the hollowed tradition of skeptical science as “deniers”, then these “scientists” and the academic system they control must be attacked less it become a weapon for tyrants to use against their people.
We aren’t talking about CAFE standards here, we are talking about controlling the entire population of the world through ‘Cap and Trade’, carbon credit exchanges, regulation of industry and impeding the progress of nations in the name of what is, to this point, little more than voodoo science. The GCM’s are clearly not correctly modeling the climate of earth with any meaninful predictive capacity and have major known faults. For any scientist to accept the goings on of the IPCC , to give tacit approval to the AGU, the Royal Society and many other organizations in their support of this charade and not raise a strong public objection is truly pathetic.
To suggest that the group in Lisbon was good because it lacked passion does not speak well of those involved. You may be a believer, you may be a luke warmer, a skeptic or even a full blown denier, but to sit idly by while science at large and academia in particular are hijacked for political ends is truly reprehensible.
In short; there is debate, the certainty is vastly overstated by politicians and scientific leaders alike and they are using a bully pulpit to advance their agenda and careers. It is time for the scientific establishment to delver a body blow to these charlatans and take the science back!
If you want reasoned debate then encourage an end to ad-hominem attacks on those who raise legitimate concern, challenge those who present theory as fact while hiding behind laws and the establishment to prevent disclosing their data and methodology, put a stop to those gaming the peer review system like a game of bridge and get your collegues to share their data and methodology on every single paper they’ve published and continue to use as a reference in future papers. Otherwise it’s a house of cards.
Best of luck on all of that!
Bob Kutz says: January 31, 2011 at 9:24 am
Amen.
Bravo! Well written… loud applause.
All this cr*p about PNS is giving me PMS – and I’m a bloke! LOL
PNS is just an excuse for doing it a ‘different way’ – and, in my opinion, there is really only one way, and it’s the same way thats been used for centuries. Yes, PNS may be a valid argument for interventionist type strategy where something HAS to be done in the immediate short term, but even in the precautionary principle approach to so called AGW (or even CAGW), the lives of very many depend on these findings – and that is just too serious to take a ‘punt’ on.
Even if AGW is considered really ‘real’ and serious (?) – surely, the policymakers would be bending over backwards to curb emissions and ordering hundreds of nuclear power stations and electric cars/trucks by the million? – why is that not happening? Instead, here in the UK, I ask , where has all the money from the last decade of additional green taxes gone? Do we have better public transport? New nuclear power stations?, 50% renewable energy generation? etc, etc. Hmm, why, it’s a resounding NO, says I, but we have a massive budget deficit, thousands more beaurocrats and ‘staff’, and many more folk on benefits, (Nu-labour carefully re-jigged the unemployment counting methods!) etc. I really don’t care about the AGW argument being used for green taxes when the taxes raised are NOT used to help the issue for which they were supposedly raised! Its a con, a scam and a sham of the first order.
As an example, How many folk ever read the small print on charitable organisations blurb? there are charities over here, where less than 10% of donations ever make to to the intended recipients!! But said charities still employ directors and staff on incredible wages!! The green/environmental tax system (here in the UK) is exactly the same in my opinion. PNS is supposed to be some justification! Hurrumph…..
I call for “term limits” on federal grants
Jeremy quotes Curry quoting Ravetz:
January 31, 2011 at 7:00 am
From Curry’s summary:
“Postnormal science. The organizers of the Workshops are proponents of postnormal science. There are many misinterpretations of PNS (many of which are evident on the previous Lisbon thread.) I won’t delve on the topic here, put pull a quote from Funtowicz and Ravetz that I found on van der Sluijs web site:”
“The Post-Normal Science approach needs not be interpreted as an attack on the accredited experts, but rather as assistance. The world of “normal science” in which they were trained has its place in any scientific study of the environment, but it needs to be supplemented by awareness of the “post-normal” nature of the problems we now confront. The management of complex natural systems as if they were simple scientific exercises has brought us to our present mixture of triumph and peril. We are now witnessing the emergence of a new approach to problem-solving strategies in which the role of science, still essential, is now appreciated in its full context of the uncertainties of natural systems and the relevance of human values.”
The hubris in these quotes staggers the imagination. According to these people, climate science has evolved beyond scientific method because of the uncertainties of natural systems. Who do these people think they are? Is there one among them who can stand with the principal scientists working at CERN? There is not. Physics was more complicated than climate science in the 19th Century. Yet the scientists at CERN are using the scientific method. They built the particle accelerator because they had identified some obsevations that could be made using the accelerator. In other words, traditional use of the scientific method.
The business about human values has always been Marxist and remains Marxist. These Marxists insist on their view that decisions must be made before the science is complete. Yet they do not reflect on the fact that it is their shoddy science that tells us that disaster looms and decisions must be made. Their argument is one tight circle.
racookpe1978: good point. This is part of the activist agenda in reality. They pick an extreme knowing that the masses will ultimately settle on a compromise. Then pick another extreme and get everyone on board for the next compromise. Eventually, after several iterations, their first extreme, or maybe more, is what gets realized. This is purely a political game: the scientific “truth” may not even exist, or perhaps, it may not even reside with the space described by the opposing sides, i.e., everybody may be wrong. It does not matter to the activist, his desire is to implement his agenda, regardless of the cost.
I have always argued that compromise is a terrible solution. In the short term, neither “side” gets what they want. In the long-term, the most extreme ideas wind up getting implemented, in the very long-term, everybody just gets screwed.
Mark
Sam Parsons says:
January 31, 2011 at 10:21 am
Yes, human values as defined by the very same people that are chucking the scientific method in the first place. This is why we have cultural references and examples in algebra textbooks in schools now, rather than equations, variables, and numbers.
Mark
Theo Goodwin says:
January 31, 2011 at 4:29 am (Edit)
Stephen Mosher is quoted as saying:
“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.”
Actually, we do control the budgets. We expect Republican Congressmen Issa and Sensenbrenner and others to blow the AGW propaganda arm of NASA out of the water. If that is not accomplished before 2012, it will most certainly be accomplished in 2012. We expect a lot more, including live testimony from James Hansen, Michael Mann, and others under oath.
Are you unaware of these matters? Are you an American? Wake up, Sir. I might be one of those congressmen in 2013.
#########
I am aware that the republicans will back down from a investigation of climate science via committee. That’s a good thing because it would backfire horribly.
Mann has testified before. On some accounts he “lied” and well you can see that the field has turned about face since his testimony. Investigations won’t change what people look at, how they look at it, and what gets published.
And yes I’m aware that NASA and NOAA budgets will be targeted for reductions.
That too will not change what get’s looked at and who looks at it. You simply fail to understand how institutions operate and how they survive in times of budget cuts.
For example, if you cut NASAs budget, how do you think this will change the direction of research to promote a skeptical view? If you cut the NSF budget do you think they will fund studies to look at Lindzen’s ideas? nope.
So even if you control the purse strings thats a blunt instrument. You have to control the line items. Which means you have to legislate science. See any problems with that?
Post normal science = Perfectly normal politics, masquerading as science.
It is an attack on science, and needs to be treated as such.
It is just that simple.
Steven Mosher,
I read your comments with interest. It appears you are saying that nothing can be done. No investigations, no budget cutting, no line item vetoes. None of it will change things.
What do we do? Continue business as usual?
With that line, I must note that you have crossed the line into an acute cognitive dissonance resulting in climatic dysfunction…not that there is anything wrong with that….
<blockquoteSam Parsons says:
January 31, 2011 at 10:21 am
The hubris in these quotes staggers the imagination.
Yes. I wasn’t even thinking along that line, but you are correct to say so.
In fact, that is another troubling aspect to this PNS nonsense that should be mentioned more. The true arrogance of these people to presume/believe that because these “new problems” we face are “complicated” that we need anything other than “normal science” to deal with them are ridiculous. Woe to us if Newton decided that rather than invent calculus, he would deal with solving for motion and complex volumes in some post-normal way. What kind of self-centered notion is it to assume that the complexities of investigating the universe that you face are in some way greater than those faced by your predecessors and that the rules for investigation must therefore change? These people sound like high schoolers complaining that advanced algebra is too hard, so please make the final into a qualitative rather than quantitative exam.
Quite simply… NO. Instead go do your homework and come up with a good question.
From the man himself:
So, what am I supposed to take from that phrase? The management of complex natural systems? What management does science provide? Science is supposed to be investigating these complex systems, not managing them. That sounds fairly non-sequitur for the discussion, honestly. But he continues with “as if they were simple scientific excercises.” So nature is complicated, and all our investigation is simple. Ok, so what? That’s why we thoroughly caveat our results with the limits of our experimentation. Or at least… we’re supposed to. Some of us (*cough*climatescientists*cough*) seem to be “above” this practice. But then the finish is… has brought us to a mix of triumph and peril. Oh there we go. I see, our simple experimentation methods when applied to the complexities of nature have brought us success and failure. Any rational person might read that and say “so what?”, buying a lottery ticket will bring you that mix and it costs $1. In this case this sentence is used as some justification. Apparently the scientific method brings us failure because we are using tools that are too simple to be applied to complex systems.
GOOD. In science, failure is GOOD. When your properly-asked-question turned into a properly-set-up-experiment fails spectacularly…. LISTEN… you’re about to learn something. That is normal science and it is well-tested by history. Those PNS advocates might do well to embrace uncertainty and failure, or soon they may be more familiar with it than they would like to be.