Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Here on WUWT, Ron Cram has provided an interesting overview of a number of people’s ideas about desirable changes to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). He proposes that the IPCC provide us with a majority and a minority view of climate science, rather than just a single Assessment Report.
I’m here to propose something very different. Some people think the IPCC should be disbanded. I’m not one of them.
Figure 1. The old time methods are still the best.
I think disbanding the IPCC is a bad idea. Instead, I think that we should take the IPCC to the crossroads at midnight and pound an aspen stake through its heart, stuff its head with garlic, and scatter the remains to be disinfected by sunlight so it can never, ever rise again.
Let me give you a list of my reasons why this is the preferable outcome, in no particular order:
• The IPCC has provided very little of value in the way of deliverables. The reports have been clearly political, heavily slanted, and shot through with third-rate science and worse, NGO puff pieces disguised as science.
• No other branch of science wants, needs, or has anything like the IPCC … which argues against it being a useful construct. Nor would most branches of science tolerate that kind of nonsense, a bunch of government bureaucrats summarizing the science.
• Instead of providing us with any kind of certainty or agreement, the IPCC has been the source of endless disagreements, arguments, and food fights. It is a force for dissension and division, not for scientific advancement and harmony. It has made the split worse, not better.
• Dr. Pachauri has shown repeatedly that he views his tenure as an Imperial Presidency, immune to comment or dissent. Indeed, his view permeates the entire organization.
• The “Summary for Policymakers” is done with lots of input from politicians. Letting politicians assist in the writing of the scientific summary for themselves and other politicians … bad idea.
• A number of underhanded, unethical, and generally dirty things have been done under the IPCC umbrella. As a result, there is a huge segment of the population who will automatically adopt the opposite position to any IPCC recommendations … and often with good reason.
• People don’t trust the IPCC. We have little confidence in the players, the science, the system, or the so-called safeguards. We’ve been lied to, systematically lied to, by the IPCC. How anyone can think the IPCC is still relevant to public policy after that is beyond me. Abraham Lincoln knew better. In a speech in 1854, he said:
If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.
And regarding the confidence of the public, nothing has changed in the last century and a half since Lincoln spoke … which is another reason why it is useless to try to keep the IPCC alive. Confidence in the IPCC is dead and it will not come back, it’s not pining for the fjords, it’s terminal, put it out of its misery.
• Previous dirty fighting has soured a number of excellent scientists on participating in the IPCC process.
• The participants are chosen by politicians of the various countries … hardly a scientific method for doing anything.
• The great Ravetzian experiment has been a failure. Jerome Ravetz is one of the founders of and hucksters for “Post-Normal Science”. He recommends including all stakeholders like politicians and planners and social scientists into the scientific process, just like the IPCC did. And he thinks that in times like the present, we need “Post-Normal Science”. (In the best Orwellian doublespeak fashion, this is not a science at all, despite the name.) Post-Normal Science holds that we need to substitute “quality” for truth. The IPCC fits right into Ravetz’s vision of “quality” and participation, and this is exactly what the IPCC claims to do — assess the quality, from the viewpoint of all the stakeholders, of the various parts of climate science.
I’m not saying Jerome Ravetz planned this in any way, he didn’t as far as I can tell. But quite unintentionally, for whatever reasons and circumstances, the IPCC has been a grand experiment in Post-Normal Science.
That experiment has failed. And not just failed, it has crashed and burned with spectacular pyrotechnics and outrageous sound effects. In addition to unending disputes, it has brought us the amusingly meretricious self-aggrandizement of third-rate scientists like Michael Mann.
The attempt to introduce some kind of “quality” assessment into climate science has not led to a greater agreement on where we stand and what to do. Instead, the IPCC and its post-normal science process has led to infighting, and to chapter authors promoting and hyping the “quality” and the “robustness” of their own work, and to questions and protests from reviewers being routinely ignored or run over, and to people gaming the system, and to everything but what the IPCC was supposed to lead to – some kind of agreement on the main points.
And that is why we need to drive a stake through its heart. It was based on false premises. One was the premise that we need something like the IPCC at all. No other arena of scientific endeavor has such a thing … oh, except for the UN bureaucrats latest power grab, a new “IPCC for the biosphere”. (OK, for those who don’t know how that will turn out, spoiler alert! The outcome will be another train wreck … I can see that many of you are surprised.)
Another very important false premise was the charmingly naive idea that Lead Authors would treat their own work the same as they treated the work of other scientists … BWAHAHAHA. Only a lapsed Marxist like Ravetz or one of his kin would be foolish enough to think that would end well. I strongly suspect that Ravetz must actually believe in the goodness of man.
Look, folks, the US Constitution works because none of the founding fathers trusted each other one inch. They didn’t believe in the goodness of man, they’d seen too many kings and tyrants for that nonsense to fly. That’s why the US has three equal branches of Government, so no one branch and no one man would get too powerful. They didn’t trust people a bit.
Why didn’t they trust anyone? Because they were realists who knew that given a chance, someone would grab the power and use it for their own interests and against the interests of the people.
Like, for example, what Michael Mann did when he was appointed Lead Author for an IPCC Chapter. Because the people who set up the IPCC believed in things like fairies, AGW, unicorns, and the basic goodness of humanity, Mann had no constraints on his scientific malfeasance. He was free to promote his Hockeystick garbage as though it were real science.
So that’s why I say kill the IPCC, deader than dead, and scatter the remains. It is built from the bottom up on false ideas, fantasies of human goodness and of the benefits of political involvement that will ensure failure even if the motives are good.
But if for our sins we have to have something like the IPCC, it needs to be set up so that no one faction can take control of the outcome. We need an IPCC Charter that is specifically designed, like the US Constitution, to prevent people from doing those things that we know they will otherwise gladly do. So if we have to have an IPCC, we need a new Charter for a new organization, a charter that starts from the premise that humans will definitely lie, cheat, and corrupt the science if given the slightest chance.
As a result, if we don’t kill the IPCC, the Fifth Assessment Report will be guaranteed to bring us at least three things among its cornucopian lack of benefits:
Liars, cheats, and corrupters of science.
My conclusion? Considering the widespread damage done by the first four attacks, I’m not sure that climate science is strong enough to endure the impending attack from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Kill the unclean beast now, while we still have a chance of saving the science.
w.
Great post Willis. I share your sentiments concerning the flaws inherent in the IPCC. But if the beast is slain, what manner of monster will replace it. If the UN is involved, in all probability a reincarnated IPCC Mk II, perhaps worse. Does anyone really believe that such a deeply flawed political organisation like the UN will create anything that doesn’t mirror it’s own shortcomings?
I suspect it may be better instead to just allow the beast to remain with withering credibility – until the save the planet crowd moves on to their next “great moral issue of our time” whatever that turns out to be.
Bob;
don’t be so sanguine about the next great (trumped-up) “moral issue”. Biodiversity and ocean acidification are both in training. Both were selected because they provide “justification” for de-industrializing the planet.
This is not the way to kill the IPCC
Money for Mr. Pauchari
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/02/money-for-mr-pachauri.html
My apologies for the long-winded post above. I guess the point of my historical ponderings is that Ravetz is trying to do for science what the CAGW alarmists have done to the scientific historical record – argue that conditions now are so different from the past that past causation no longer counts. Yet Copernicus, Galileo, Lavoisier, etc all faced high stakes and conflicting values, and the facts were not certain (if they were, there would have been no heliocentric/geocentric or phlogiston/oxygen debates), but somehow coped without PNS. Yet science has somehow reached the curve in the hockeystick blade today, and new assessment methods (quality vs truth?) are now needed? Frankly, give me a break. The argument for historical discontinuity is as specious in the philosophy of science as it is in the history of climate.
“Nothing but Net” Willis – Thanks!
PNS – Politically Neutered Science :).
Willis,
I like the spirit of your post.
I would suggest though that the humanist philosophy that shaped the ideas of the founders of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America was more profoundly optimistic about human natur than your less than positive view of mankind.
I completely agree regarding PNS. It is of the same philosophical parentage as the Kantian-Hegelian-Marxist philosophical axis. It belongs in the historical dustbins along with European 19th & 20th century authoritarian socio-economic-politico ideology. PNS has no relationship to objective science. It is the creation of non-content epistemology.
John
vigilantfish says:
February 15, 2011 at 4:48 am
”””My apologies for the long-winded post above. I guess the point of my historical ponderings is that Ravetz is trying to do for science what the CAGW alarmists have done to the scientific historical record – argue that conditions now are so different from the past that past causation no longer counts.”””
——–
vigilantfish,
Your apology is not needed, please continue on about the historical and philosophical baggage that PNS carries with it.
I think PNS is part of the ideology that precipitated the IPCC and its associated AGW bias. It is part of the original problem and not part of a solution set.
John
Well, just let me add this as the 182nd poster: Ditto.
vigilantfish says:
February 15, 2011 at 4:48 am
Yet Copernicus, Galileo, Lavoisier, etc all faced high stakes and conflicting values, and the facts were not certain (if they were, there would have been no heliocentric/geocentric or phlogiston/oxygen debates), but somehow coped without PNS. Yet science has somehow reached the curve in the hockeystick blade today, and new assessment methods (quality vs truth?) are now needed? Frankly, give me a break.
Ravetz told me an interesting story about Lavoisier and mathematicians being excluded from the inner circle while we were at Lisbon. History endlessly repeats.
Sure, you can throw out Ravetz’ idea of the ‘extended peer community’ (including sceptics and their ‘leaked documents’), having a say in policy formation. Then we can get back to the good old days of the science/public policy interface being run behind closed doors by unaccountable mandarins.
/sarc
Tallbloke:
I have to confess I don’t quite get your point, sarc or no sarc.
Not sure what story you are thinking of re: Lavoisier. He was to my knowledge pretty much inner circle in the development of the new chemistry which finally fully ejected the 4-element theory. Priestly also ran in his own inner circles, but ended up leaving England for Pennsylvania because of his prior political commitments (i.e. French-Revolution-supporting radical) which were not flavour of the month in England at the time. Lavoisier was very much a part of public policy re water purification etc, as was Joseph Banks in England in that era, but Galileo was not a public policy-maker, and again, I was not aware that training in public policy-making was a part of scientific training. The divide here is applied science, in these cases.
Yes, the greater community should have some input in policy-making, and many fisheries scientists, for example, have become advocates of fishermen’s participation in generating scientific knowledge as well as local or participatory management schemes, but this does not necessarily impinge on how scientific theory itself is upheld or decided. In fisheries science, the actual development of science principles, theories, and accepted knowledge is divided from management science, although senior scientists who move towards administration do move back and forth between the two. Fisheries scientists regard themselves as separate from the ‘managers’.
vigilantfish says:
February 15, 2011 at 7:50 am
but this does not necessarily impinge on how scientific theory itself is upheld or decided.
And nor should it. And nor does PNS. It does not attempt to “replace truth with quality”. Nor does it interfere with the scientific method. It uses quality control assessments when there is no truth to be had; *after* the science has been done, but facts remain both uncertain and not amenable to standard techniques such as Bayesean methods.
There is a strong argument to say that if the climate scientists had done their job properly to start with, they would have no reason or excuse to invoke the need for PNS analyses.
However, given that they did, we can now hoist them neatly on their own petard by demanding a seat at the table as legitimate members of the ‘extended peer community’, along with our ‘leaked documents’.
Or we can go stake driving as Willis prefers.
Willis said:
“… time wounds all heels, as they say.”
————————————————
It wasn’t ‘they’, it was Dorothy Parker.
I have to agree with vigilantfish about PNS. It is a travesty which illustrates the muddled thinking that has infested debates about climate. Blurring the boundaries between politics (and political techniques) and science is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Just because science cannot definitively answer a particular question at a particular time doesn’t mean you water down the scientific content. It just means that, as throughout history, decision makers have to make judgement calls. In democracies, the decision makers are accountable at the polls for those decisions.
It is not as if scientific disagreements, or imperfect knowledge, are new. They are a fact of life, always will be.
I certainly don’t want PNS anywhere near medical research. Imperfect as it is, the results of sticking to traditional scientific methods have produced significant extensions of quality and quantity of life. Why is climate science any different?
PNS = Post-Modern Subset (PMS) of “Situation Ethics”
Aw Willis, stop sitting on that there fence, and tell us what you really think!
tallbloke says:
February 15, 2011 at 8:27 am
Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. I know for a fact that you are smarter than that. Sloppy thinking, you need to up your game if you want to continue to play.
Or in other words, giving the stakeholders a seat at the table is an idea far, far older than Ravetz. It is not in opposition to stake driving, it is not an “either/or” choice as you seem to think. Your claim, that somehow if anyone wants a seat at the table that we have to invite Ravetz too, is laughable.
w.
Tallbloke:
You state:
There is a strong argument to say that if the climate scientists had done their job properly to start with, they would have no reason or excuse to invoke the need for PNS analyses.
However, given that they did, we can now hoist them neatly on their own petard by demanding a seat at the table as legitimate members of the ‘extended peer community’, along with our ‘leaked documents’.
My problem with this formulation is that we are no longer really talking about science here, but diplomacy and negotiations. Unfortunately, the political reality that applies in such situations is that ‘might makes right’ as the more powerful players have more sway. In the climate science ‘communities’ even though the hockey team, CRU etc. have taken some major hits, in the political and scientific realms they still hold power. Who or what is the neutral party that is to adjudicate? If no adjudication, I have plenty of experience of faculty meetings in which obnoxious personalities hold the entire meeting hostage to their agendas through sheer force of nastiness masquerading as ‘due course’. Other faculty members are just ‘too nice’ or sometimes too stupid to stand up to these people. I think something similar to this has in fact happened in the science community owing to perhaps less-than-scrupulous climate scientists taking advantage of the noble causes endorsed by biologists and other scientists.
I do not see that PNS would put CAGW skeptics or their scientific representatives at any advantage or even in a position of equality, given current political ‘green’ world views and environmental paradigms.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 15, 2011 at 10:53 am
Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. .
No problem, I’ll add, “or whatever else anyone wants to suggest and get on with”.
Your claim, that somehow if anyone wants a seat at the table that we have to invite Ravetz too, is laughable.
We didn’t invite Ravetz. He helped get the European Union Joint Research Centre to invite us.
All the best with your own efforts.
tb
tallbloke says:
Apologies for the lack of clarity in my writing. When I said:
it was intended to be metaphorical rather than literal. It referred to what I saw as your attempt to convince us that “including the stakeholders” was some kind of innovation of PNS, and thus if we accept the value of including the stakeholders we have to accept the value of PNS.
My point was that including the stakeholders has nothing at all to do with Ravetz. He didn’t invent the idea, he didn’t popularize it. Yes, it is valuable … but that doesn’t make PNS valuable.
And you as well, keep up the good work.
w.
Wow Roger Tallbloke,
You’re taking it from both sides on the PNS issue. I have to review a book that criticizes the history of Canadian fisheries management and defends Post Normal Science as the way forward, so this thread has re-ignited my interest in understanding PNS. I just visited Post Normal Times as a part of my research and see you have recently been taking it on the chin there.
http://postnormaltimes.net/wpblog/?p=335&cpage=1#comment-7807
I’m definitely an admirer, despite my disagreement with the philosophy you uphold.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 15, 2011 at 3:00 pm
“Your claim, that somehow if anyone wants a seat at the table that we have to invite Ravetz too, is laughable.”
it was intended to be metaphorical rather than literal.
Fine.
Ravetz helped get the European Union interested in hearing what we have to say, and then got off his backside and helped organise a face to face meeting with a policy maker, IPCC lead author, high profile journalists, and others. This concordes better with my own personal philosophy, which is a philosophy of action. I found Lisbon to be tremendously worthwhile for all sorts of reasons I won’t bore you with. It might have been small steps, and mistakes were made, and differences weren’t all settled, but least it was something other than just talking amongst ourselves, and we managed to disagree agreeably.
Sincere thanks for the good wishes.
tb.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 14, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Thank you for your response–an eminently reasonable position. I agree that we need regulations and organizations to see that the regulations are followed. However at the point the regulating organization does more harm than good, I believe it’s time to disband the organization and create a new set of regulations and/or a new regulating body. In my opinion, even if the EPA cost the taxpayers nothing, it has crossed the threshold where it is doing more harm than good. In light of the cost it takes to keep the EPA running, its disbandenment is long overdue.
Theo Goodwin says: February 14, 2011 at 10:48 am
Thank you Theo, much appreciated.
And the further discussions on PNS.
tallbloke, you say:
The problem with Ravetz for me is that he is a mass of unresolved contradictions, at least from where I’m sitting. However, he seems to have had a real conversion regarding the problems with climate science, and is acting on it, which is great.
Many thanks for the discussion, tb,
w.
vigilantfish;
Yes, “Post Normal Times”, indeed. That “post-normal” is explicitly the progressives’ “post-normal”, meaning after the discarding of all the philosophies, sciences, cultural norms, and standards of the [by definition deluded] past.
Ravetz has put lipstick AND false eyelashes on that particular swine.