Guest post by Dr. Jerome Ravetz
While the micro-bureaucracy of the Lisbon workshop bureaucracy grinds its way towards the release of a statement, I realise that the time is long overdue for me to touch base at WUWT.
After all, it was at WUWT (with the help of Rog Tallbloke) that I made my debut on the blogosphere, and enjoyed the reaction of hundreds of readers, be they enthusiastic or vitriolic. Also, it was on WUWT that I had the first experience of seeing non-violent communication in the Climategate debate. The circumstances were surprising, for it involved our very own fire-eating champion Willis.
He was responding to Judith Curry’s posting, where she explained how she had got to where she was then. Of course he loathed her for complicity in the great Warmista fraud, and he despised her for attempting to apologise for her actions rather than crawling to WUWT in full contrition. But he had to admit that he respected and admired her for guts in doing a Daniel act, and facing the lions like himself. At that point, non-violence in the climate debate was born. For Willis had realised that bad people are not necessarily all bad. There might even be some purpose in talking to them! From that point on, WUWT could take the lead in enforcing civility in the debate, and I am very pleased to see how the principle has spread all across the lines.
Reflecting on that incident, I began to shape up ideas for the workshop that eventually took place last month. Of course it was highly imperfect, with many things done and not done in error. But what was remarkable was the universal spirit of accomplishment, even delight, that people were getting on so well and so productively. Of course, this depended to some extent on our choice of invitations; we did get close to the edge of the zone on the spectrum within in which people would be sure to be reasonably civil to each other. On that first meeting, with so much other learning to do, it would not have been productive to have explosions of mutual insults. Another time, we could try to take on that one as well.
I suppose people know that I went to a Quaker college, Swarthmore, and I have spent all the years afterwards making sense of its message of nonviolence. In a course on political science I read ‘The Power of Non-Violence’ by Richard Gregg. It struck me as very sweet but quite unrealistic. Between then and now was Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, and now Tunisia, Egypt and beyond. It seems that a group of non-violent activists in Serbia had used a book by one of Gregg’s followers, Gene Sharp. They had passed the message to a study group in Qatar, and it was picked up by the activists in Tunisia and Egypt to become the basis of their strategy. The rest is history in the making. There is at last some chance that revolutions now will not simply produce new tyrannies. All this gives support to my conviction that we were correct in making the main purpose of the Lisbon workshop to further the development of non-violence in scientific debate.
My principle has always been that you don’t know what the other person is going through, and to return their violence doesn’t help them resolve their conflict of conscience. It’s so easy to condemn the evil ones and try to destroy them; that way we would still have the sectarian killings in Northern Ireland and probably a bloodbath in South Africa. On the personal level, who would have known that the slave-trader John Newton was being prepared for the experience that would eventually lead him to compose ‘Amazing Grace’?
With those words of explanation, I offer my Lisbon public lecture to Anthony Watts for debate on WUWT. This, I believe is the essence of the Lisbon story, rather than who said what about whom. Willis – over to you!
==================================================================
Non-Violence in Science?
Jerome Ravetz,
‘Reconciliation in the Climate Change Debate’
Public Meeting at the Gulbenkian Foundation
Lisbon 28 January 2011
People attending this conference might find the whole idea of non-violence in science to be strange. We are familiar, by now, with the use of reconciliation and non-violence to resolve intractable disputes in the political sphere. Indeed, it is now generally accepted that this is the only way to achieve a lasting and just settlement in conflicts between peoples. It worked in South Africa and in Northern Ireland, and noone with standing in the international community argues for a different approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. But science? What possible relevance could this approach have to science?
Debate, sometimes fierce and impassioned, is the lifeblood of science. The advances of science do not occur smoothly and by consensus. There are always at least two sides to the interpretation of new theories and results. Social researchers have found that each scientific side explains its own attitudes in methodological terms, and explains the attitudes of the opposition in sociological terms. Roughly speaking, “I” am being a scientist, and “They” are being – something else. All this is quite natural and inevitable, and it has been that way from the beginning.
The process does not work perfectly. There is no ‘hidden hand’ that guides scientists quickly and correctly to the right answer. There can be injustices and losses; great innovators can languish in obscurity for a lifetime, because their theories were too discordant with the prevailing paradigm or ‘tacit knowledge’. However, to the best of our knowledge, the correct understanding does eventually emerge, thanks to the normal processes of debate and to the plurality of locations and voices in any field of science.
Why, then, have we organised a scientific conference about reconciliation, where we have actually had instruction in the theory and practice of ‘Non-Violent Communication’? Do we really need to import the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi into the conduct of science? We believe that on this occasion we do. This conference has not been about science in general, or any old field of science. The focus has been on Climate Change, and in particular the rancour that has been released by the ‘Climategate’ emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England.
This debate has not just been about the science of climate change It also concerns policy, for reducing the emissions of Carbon Dioxide worldwide. This requires a very large, complex and expensive project. It extends into lifestyles and values, as the transition out of a carbon-based economy will require a change in our ideas of comfort, convenience and the good life. There are urgent issues of equity, both between rich and poor peoples now, and also between ourselves and our descendants. All these profound issues depend for their resolution on an adequate basis in science. Some say, if we are not really sure that bad things are happening, why bother imposing these drastic and costly changes on the world’s people? But others reply, by what right can we use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for failing to protect ourselves and our descendants from irreversible catastrophe?
Both of those positions accept that there is a real debate about the strength of the science, and effectively argue about the proper burden of proof, or degree of precaution that is justified. But there are plenty of voices on the extremes. For quite some time, the official scientific establishments, particularly in the Anglophone world, claimed that ‘the science is settled’, and ‘the debate is over’. At the opposite extreme are those, including some quite reputable scientists, who argue that nothing whatever has been proved about the long-term changes in climate that might be resulting from the current increase in the concentration of Carbon Dioxide. Between these extremes, the explanations of opposing views are not merely sociological. They become political and moral. Each side accuses the other of being corrupt. The ‘skeptics’ or ‘deniers’ are dismissed as either working for outside interests, industrial or ideological, or being grossly incompetent as scientists. In short, as being either prostitutes or cranks. In their turn, the ‘alarmists’ or ‘warmistas’ are accused of feathering their own nests as grant-gaining entrepreneurial scientists, playing along with their own dishonest ideological politicians. In their protestations of scientific objectivity, they are accused of the corruptions of hypocrisy.
In the classic philosophy of science, it was imagined that debates would be settled by a ‘crucial experiment’. The observations made by Eddington in 1919 confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity, tout court. Before that, Rutherford showed that the atom is nearly all empty space, with a massive nucleus and planetary electrons circling it. Such crisp, clean experiments are taken as characteristic of natural science, establishing its status as solid knowledge, superior to the mere opinions of the social sciences and humanities. Where such crucial experiments happen not to occur, as in the case of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, it is assumed that they would occur if we could devise them. For that is the essence of science.
When we come to the climate, there are indeed two classic, simple experiences that for some are as conclusive as Eddington’s observation of the planet Mercury and of the light from the star in the Hyades cluster. The first of these is the original model of a ‘greenhouse’ earth made by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896. And the second is a remarkable set of readings of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, taken on top of the Hawaiian volcano Mauna Loa, showing a steady rise from their inception in the 1950’s. Nothing could be more convincing than that combination, except to those who do not wish to be convinced. Suffice to say that the application of the Arrhenius model to the actual conditions on earth, including all the effects that could modify the entry and exit of radiant energy, plus the storage of heat in the oceans, leaves plenty of room for debate for those that want it. And the Mauna Loa data extend only over a half-century; extrapolating that backwards or forward is again not entirely straightforward.
Hence the climate science debate is one where all the features that make natural science different from sociology, or indeed from politics, are weakened or absent. And in the course of that debate we have discovered a serious flaw in the prevailing philosophy of science: there is no explanation of honest error. Students of science never see a failed experiment or a mistaken theory; for them it is success and truth all the way. Only those who have done truly innovative research discover how intimately are success and failure, truth and error, connected. And so when a scientist finds him- or herself convinced of the truth of a particular theory, they have no framework for treating their erring opponent with respect. “I” am right, “you” are wrong, and by persisting in your error you demonstrate that your failings are moral as well as intellectual. In the ordinary course of scientific debate such attitudes are kept under control, but in the total, complex climate science debate they come to dominate.
The debate has passed its peak of intensity, as the failure of Copenhagen has taken the impetus out of the policy drive. But the rancour and bitterness are unresolved. There has been some softening of attitudes about the issue of global warming, but (so far as I can see) little softening of emotions about past adversaries. It is for that reason that my colleagues and I have made this unusual experiment, if you wish bringing Gandhi to science or even science to Gandhi. As we planned it, our hopes were modest indeed. We could not imagine attracting people with very hardened views on the other side. We know that political negotiations begin with intermediaries, then perhaps progress to members in adjacent rooms, eventually have principals all ensconced in a secret location, and only when it is all over do they meet in public. Of course people don’t trust and respect each other at the start; and they themselves are distrusted by their own side even for dealing with the enemy. Only gradually, with many fits and false starts, is trust built up.
So for our first little experiment, we brought together people who would at least talk to those we brought with opposing views. And of course, what is essential in such activities, all who are there agree that this is an important venture. When we saw how some very busy people have enthusiastically agreed to come from very long distances, we felt that this venture is indeed worthwhile. Of course we hope that by its success it will lead to others. We do not at all intend to ‘solve’ the climate science debate, or to reach a consensus on whether we must now mount a global campaign against Carbon Dioxide. That is to be left to other forums, organised from within the appropriate scientific institutions. If we can only get people talking, and eventually framing particular scientific questions on which agreement could in principle be reached, that will have been as great a success as we could hope for.
We would also like such a venture as this to be an example of the power of non-violence, even in science. The great culture heroes of the last half-century have been defined by non-violence: Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, and now Aung San Suu Kyi. They all paid a price for their convictions, sometimes a heavy one. We note that none were white men, and none were scientists. This is not to say that non-violence has been totally absent from science. We all know of Einstein and his ambivalent relation to warfare; and there is the late Sir Joseph Rotblat, who gave up a career in science to found the Pugwash movement for East-West dialogue during the cold war. But if we search for scientists who have really lived out their non-violent convictions, we find two nonwhite women: Wangerai Maathai and Vandana Shiva.
That reflection brings me to the state of science itself. Those of an older generation remember a time when the prestige of science was unquestioned. Science would save the world, and scientists would do the saving. It is all different now, and the mutual denunciations of the scientists in the Climategate debate have not helped. One of the most important influences that drove me to a personal involvement in this debate was a report by our distinguished colleague Judith Curry, of a conversation with a student. This student was dismayed by the Climategate story that had just broken, and wondered whether this was the sort of career that she wanted to take up. We all know what happens to institutions when they fail to attract the brightest and the best young people. Slowly, perhaps, but surely, they atrophy and wither.
You see the connection. If ‘science’ comes to be seen by young people as the sort of institution where Climategate happens, and where scientists insult and condemn each other, its future is not bright. Of course, this negative reaction would happen only at the margins; but it is at the margins where we will find the really wonderful young people that we need. I cannot prescribe, indeed I can scarcely imagine, how the spirit of non-violence that has inspired the political world can be imported effectively into science. But I would argue that it is an attempt that is well worth making, even for the future of science itself.
WUWT is truly phantastic! Thanks for this blog!
I absolutely agree with Willis Eschenbach and all the others who insist on reality checks! I found the example with the kids counting building blocks a good one. And like memory vault (and others) I want to see proof of accusations.
Mr. Ravez is confusing and mixing things and gets it wrong: Too bad for him. I strongly object his idea that “the skeptics” are to blame for the heated debate. Linking a heated debate to violence is a rhetoric trick which I find unacceptable. Science should not be about rhetorics, and I believe that one of the causes of the present confusion is that too much rhetorics, too much guesswork, too many assumptions took hold. There is a distinct lack of logic, a confusion of quantity with quality, too little effort to “reduce to the max”.
The AGW battle is not over, and since it is about control – thought control as well as the very real control of everybodys life – it will go on for some time. Those who exercise the power and control our life are at present in favor of AGW. Those who try to control our thoughts are – the very same who claim “the science is settled”.
I too wish to comment on Dr. Ravetz’s idea that “Those of an older generation remember a time when the prestige of science was unquestioned. Science would save the world, and scientists would do the saving.”
Though I am a generation younger than the good doctor, I am widely read in both ancient and modern history. Yet I cannot remember ever hearing of such a time. Science in the modern sense has always produced not only humane practitioners but also madmen and frauds, and the public has always been aware of that. Faust and Dr. Frankenstein come to mind. Fictional characters, yes. There were also the eugenicists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and creatures like Dr. Mengele and the authors of the Tuskegee experiment. Real-life monsters with impeccable training and credentials.
Even if humanity’s only chance of survival were to trust itself to the gods in white lab coats, I for one would not like to live in the sterile, rationalized, planned economy that would result. I suspect most humans who are still in touch with their mammalian natures feel the same way. In any case it is not an option, as nature will always throw out curve balls to wreck the tidy plans of the rationalists.
For those who can’t handle the “violence” implied in sharp disagreement or the uncertainty that life implies, I suggest you upload yourselves into a computer simulation of life and let the improvisers among us get on with the real world.
Before lionising Nelson Mandela as “a hero of non-violence” perhaps Dr Ravetz should check out what he was imprisoned for? It was certainly NOT non-violence!
Post Normal Mind Reading?
Willis Eschenbach, February 25, 2010:
“Judith, I love ya, but you’re way wrong …”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/25/judith-i-love-ya-but-youre-way-wrong/
Jerome Ravetz, February 21, 2011:
“Of course he loathed her for complicity in the great Warmista fraud, and he despised her for attempting…”
In Re:flicka47 says:
February 21, 2011 at 2:57 pm
In Re: Bob Kutz
. . . . And we just can not wait!! to implement their preferred policies despite the known damages those policies will, not could bring.
I’m not so sure they don’t qualify as evil.
I am absolutely certain that the members of the scientific community do not get a say in policy. They may have a voice, but democracy still prevails.
I think those who are trying to implement the policy and have the power to do so may in fact fully understand the ramifications of such. That may or may not make them evil; the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
But don’t cast that pall over these scientists. The powers that be view them as nothing more than useful idiots. The science must be corrected and then the policy wonks and politicians will not have a leg to stand on. It’s as simple as that. Don’t let the pols have the science.
If you wan’t to get involved in the policy and political debate (and I suggest you do) then it’s probably best to stay away from the scientific debate. A subjective point of view has little value in science.
But; calling them evil when they are just stupid is indeed wrong!
I agree wholeheartedly with Johanna. What violence? Now there are all sorts of things wrong with the climate debate, but violence is not one of them.
Rough language, false accusations, personal attacks and insults, ignorance, stupidity, YES, all of these, but no violence.
One could possibly define a certain level of vitriol as violence, but to what end? If there is no problem, why go to extreme lengths to fix it?
The main problem of the climate debate is that is one-sided. There is a side that wants debate and one which does not. Only when it starts burning somewhere does the “establishment” come out for a bit of extinguishing. Science has been attacked, they shout, running around to salvage something from the ruins.
So the main problem that should be adressed is that there is no debate. And this is the problem that needs to be fixed. And it is only mainstream climate science which has the solution.
Of course, when a fanatic guerilla group has captured the parliament, the media end the universities, they would suddenly start advocating “non-violence” in an attempt to render their opponents completely castrated.
This all smacks of the outcome of one of those seminars: “after the attacks on science, how de we regain the public trust?”
And poiint number one would be to sterilize opponents through appeasement, a half-assed gesture of acceptance and through a non-violent non-debate designed to lead nowhere but away from the view of the public eye.
Nice try, though.
I spent 20 years designing IBM PC compatibles (1981-2001) hardware, firmware, and software. Maintaining backwards compatibility is incredibly difficult while at the same time increasing performance by great leaps and introducing major architectural changes such as 8 to 16 to 32 to 64 bits. Some software (and some hardware expansion cards & accessories) are inevitably lost at every step. It’s next to impossible to test everything and even harder to fix it all. Testing of a major new MS O/S goes on for at least a year and sometimes two or three years with every major software and hardware participating – literally tens of thousands of people testing hundreds of thousands of third-party hardware and software.
Your ire, Anthony, is misplaced. It should be directed at the software vendor for the failed package for not providing a free patch or update in a timely manner or at yourself for buying a 64bit O/S without first checking to see if some obscenely expensive software you owned (which probably costs far more than the whole computer you purchased) was reported to be working properly on it first.
Of course courteous debate is preferable to ad hominim attack but, in science I’d say ACTIONS speak louder than words. The scientific method is paramount:
Archive your date, (Mann, Jones?)
Show your data, ( Hockey”team”?)
Honor the peer review process, ( Hockey Team yet again and Steig reviewing O’Donnell?)
Follow stated policy processes, (IPCC re non use of ‘grey’ literature? O’Donnell review
re conflict of interest?)
And Professor Ravetz, with regard to your own discourse here tonight, I find your attributing motives to Willis which he did not profess, somewhat provocative and thereby combative…. P.S. I am also puzzled that you seem to be suggesting, concerning the theory of CAGW, that the science is settled? With respect 🙂
This is for Mr and Mrs Watts and the amazing challenges they have faced together as the WUWT has invited the international community to their family’s door step.
Apologies no pets or kids in this one. Plenty of peachey loveliness in place of LEDS.
before I post next.
And in Oz we will organise a razor and suit on your next visit Anthony. Mrs Watts will be more organised I expect.
johanna says:
February 22, 2011 at 1:43 am
“Science has saved hundreds of millions of lives, through vaccination and the work of Norman Borlaug, to name a couple of examples. But, it has never, and will never, ‘save the world’. This is hubris and folly. Something could come whizzing out of space and wipe us out in a few seconds, to take an extreme example.”
Well said. Science might reveal to us that, because of a quirk in the human genome, all humans will cease to exist next month. Having revealed the scientific truth about the matter, science will have done its job. Science has never had the job of saving the human race. It is better seen as a hand maiden to farmers, a role that it plays just beautifully and with proper humility. Those who promote science as the savior of the human race are actually promoting themselves.
Dr. Ravetz,
You were part of the devolution of many parts of academia into activism based upon divisive ad hominem rhetoric and collective identity politics. The “critical theory” that you tried to bring to “critical science” openly engages in advocacy, it demonizes non-coercive relationships as exploitation, it rhetorically creates “victims”, encouraging divisive collective identities and assigns collective guilt to individuals based upon mere subjective categories that aren’t rigorously defensible.
You come here claiming to be seeking peace and civility, only to insult us:
“Nothing could be more convincing than that combination, except to those who do not wish to be convinced.”
So, we don’t wish to be convinced, we are just stubbornly refusing to see the light?
“Suffice to say that the application of the Arrhenius model to the actual conditions on earth, including all the effects that could modify the entry and exit of radiant energy, plus the storage of heat in the oceans, leaves plenty of room for debate for those that want it.”
So we just want debate? We can’t possibly be seeking objectivity because you deny that it exists. You don’t have an informed opinion on the science, by inference, because you don’t think being informed matters. The reason Arrhenius and the Hawaii CO2 data don’t “convince” is that they aren’t the issue. The issue is the net feedbacks to CO2 forcing, the credibility of model results published without accounting for their known diagnostic problems, and the lack of any model independent evidence that the net feedbacks are positive rather than negative. Even granting Arrhenius and the Hawaii data, which most here do, there is no reason to think that CO2’s contribution to the recent warming was any more than the 30% or so attributable to its direct effects. If you have better information, and wish to recant and contribute to the search for objectivity, please share it.
I reckon UNTIL I read
#1. What the ‘hypothesis’ is BEFORE the grant is provided and the DATA gathering and the transparency. Then I might want to read the paper. And then the next step in science is;
#2 paper would be an explanation as to the persuasive reason[s] the hypothesis has been chosen, complete with the literature review;
#3 the literature review being readily available of course.
And then not being a scientist, I would then hope the real scientists had picked up on these steps.
I can of course haz a chance with serendipity. But it would want to be well spelled out…transparently.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/21/ravetz-on-lisbon-and-leading-the-way/#comment-604269
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/21/ravetz-on-lisbon-and-leading-the-way/#comment-604401
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/21/ravetz-on-lisbon-and-leading-the-way/#comment-604510
Good comments, as most others, thank you.
Of course I will read his stuff. Or at the very least have access to it. Otherwise I would have been fooled to think such excuses for science existed.
Dr Ravetz, my grandad was a pacifist too. As were his brothers. He ended up in civilian Changi being fed a scientifically nutritious diet. Neat experiment of the times. It’s a bit more applied than torched earth policy.
Two generations later, most of my students, maintained as socialist-greenie climate science fodder, were fed via proxy your style of scientific diarrhoea. The most memorable, amongst countless, countless other students, including their children, was found dead, being barbequed when 8 months pregnant. And I live in Australia.
You should try sometime in PNG, where women are still traded. They remain below the price of pigs (old style trade) and old-growth forest (recent style trade) and now carbon (new style trade). No comment on the children these women birth, either traded through ‘land’ marriages or rape.
If they and their children are lucky to survive HIV (for eg) in spite of the lack of medical care and infrastructure because it is all been channelled in to trading carbon or trading the HIV-drug aid into that economy, then that would be reported. Like the rest of the Pacific islands. But it isn’t.
And the cyclones, mud slides, floods and awful infrastructure?
Because the ‘thin air’ trade didn’t need blood, sweat, tears and smarts – that’s real work. By real men and women.
How can you reason with, or make compromises with, the CAGW zealots responsible for this criminal travesty?
I’m sorry, Dr. Ravetz, but your prose gives me the heebie-jeebies. Why? Because the universe you live in appears to me to be the artificial, nay phantasmagoric, construct of a confused mind.
If you want my simile, your relationship with science seems like the relationship of the crusaders with the New Testament. And no, I’m not drawing attention to the violent nature of the crusades, but rather the underlying point that it’s mind-bogglingly incomprehensible how any individual could fail to detect the disconnect between “solutions” and the precepts and principles he supposedly avows. You do avow the precepts and principles of science, don’t you? At least in the form you are pleased to call “normal”?
No one is pretending that “normal” science is perfect. Indeed, I’d go so far as to say it’s a sick puppy. However, improving it will not, I opine, be achieved by recourse to PNS – any more than the cause of Christianity was furthered by the crusades.
If a puppy’s sick, what’s needed is a vet: someone thoroughly versed in canine maladies. You aren’t a vet. You’re – heck, what are you? Words fail me.
I have seen one recent initiative which might conceivably work – that of Richard Muller et. al. at Berkeley. It’s at least grounded in some kind of reality, even though Muller is, at bottom, a warmist. However, he’s as scientific a warmist as I have ever clapped eyes on, and inspires a certain amount of trust even in someone like me, with a tendency to scepticism. This video gives a fair impression of where he’s coming from and what he wants to achieve:
If he’s sincere, and I believe he might well be, then he could be the vet that climate science so badly needs. I’m certainly not going to dismiss him out of hand because he’s on the other side of the fence. There. Did you see any violence in that pronouncement of mine? or rancour, or any lack of respect?
IMO, the only reason there’s ever been even the slightest intimation of that is precisely because consensus scientists haven’t in the past been inclined to engage with honest enquiry. As Muller himself admits, he simply accepted the hockey stick because he assumed Mann was as principled a scientist as he himself was. Now he feels differently, he wants to belay the hype and return to responsible science, conveying information in measured terms, making all data and methods freely available as a matter of course. Which is all I, and I daresay many others here, have ever wanted.
Moderater, please delete my above post, (David says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. February 22, 2011 at 6:22 am )
I need to separate some paragraphs for clarity and repost.
Thanks in advance
David
Mr Ravetz writes,
“This debate has not just been about the science of climate change It also concerns policy, for reducing the emissions of Carbon Dioxide worldwide. This requires a very large, complex and expensive project.”
Jeremy, these are two entirely separate issues which MUST be kept separate with one connection. Science, as traditionally defined, must be PROTECTED in the openness (Full release of all data and metadata, no pay walls if publicly funded) and REPEATABILITY and VERFITABILITY of its experiments.
WISDOM in the policy debate, is impossible if the science is not isolated and PROTECTED from policy. Jeremy, I think you stated, “When facts are uncertain, when values are in conflict, when stakes are high, when decisions seem urgent, the FIRST casualty is “normal” science. “ I would say the first obligation of policy makers, those with integrity to truth, should be to PROTECT and defend “NORMAL” science, and not let it be a casualty.
It is science, done correctly, that determines if decisions are “URGENT” and to rush prematurely to policy is to CREATE conflict, especially when that POLICY is what places “values in conflict“, demanding trillions in revenue, and world wide social restructure, centralizing power away from the individual, and even democracy, (when have the CAGW proponents ever said “lets vote on this”, and threatens the liberty of billions.
In the case of CAGW, the field of science is hopelessly inundated with policy. Many advocacy groups have succeeded in influencing the science. (The IPCC reports that include non peer reviewed articles predicting disaster, the obvious advocacy of policy by certain scientist, the attempts to control peer review and the relatively small group of scientist doing pal-review, the open admittance of political agenda by some proponents to redistribute wealth, etc)
Where there is conflict within the science, debate should be DEMANDED by policy makers. This debate should be done in writing and open to the public in a format that is coldly empirical, like a peer reviewed article but more concisely focused on the critical assertions and areas of conflict.
Until then, the radical policies of CAGW proponents will be resisted, non-violently by some, but not all.
Dr. Ravetz,
I posted the below comment on Climate Etc, where Judith Curry is also discussing this post:
I am convinced that where the discourse goes off the rails is when scientists quit talking about science and begin talking about policy. Jim Hansen talking about trains carrying coal as “death trains” is not helpful. Show me a scientist who has NEVER talked about policy and I can show you a scientist that may play a role in getting science back to a normal state.
I think Ravetz is correct that climate science is in a post-normal state right now. But civility alone is not going to redeem climate science. It will only recover when enough scientists focus on the science and ignore those talking about policy.
For example, when I say unions destroy the economy, some people will think I’m talking about politics. Not true. That is a statement about history and economics. And it is irrefutable. When I say because unions destroy the economy, we need to limit their power – that becomes a political statement.
The problem right now is the IPCC is making claims about the science which have not been shown. Then they take these unproven statements and make policy statements on them. We need a better assessment of the current state of climate science than the IPCC is providing. The editorial apparatus has been seized by alarmists driven by an agenda. Until we can get a thoroughgoing assessment which is seen as more reliable than the IPCC, we can never get back to normal science.
I think Dr Ravetz is missing the point here.
To understand why this argument is so acrimonius, one must understand the history of the idea of GHG driven global warming.
The science of how CO2 influences the atmosphere dates from 1859, and has had general scientific acceptance. In 1896, Arrhenius made a calculation of how industrial emissions of CO2, which are added on top of the balanced natural cycle of emissions, would cause general warming of the earth. According to his calculations, using his estimate of emissions at the time, it would take thousands of years and doubling of CO2 would result in 6C average temperature change. Arrhenius and others, thought that the warming would benefit mankind, and no thought was given to limitation of emissions.
In the 1920’s this theory was sidelined, because erroneous measurements, seemed to show that the CO2 effect was already saturated. In the 1950’s this was shown not to be true, as a result of more accurate spectroscopy, and a more accurate numerical calculation showing that due to the temperature gradient with altitude, the effect of CO2 was not saturated.
Advances in computers and simulation since then continue to show that global temperatures will get warmer as a result of increases in GHG’s and the only uncertainty is how much warmer.
Two independent polls of active climate science researchers done recently show 97% accept that GHG emissions due to human activity are warming the earth significantly. According to a poll by R. Pielke Sr., about 1/2 of the researchers who filled out questionaires believed the IPCC report got it right, and about 20 percent thought they understated the damage to humanity of climate change, and about 20 percent thought the overstated it. So why is their such opposition to the idea in some quarters?
The answer to this lies in politics. If there is damage and it should be prevented, it would require cooperative action of the entire world, limitations of certain activities by government, and changes in lifestyle over time. One can expect a lot of opposition and suspicion among people opposed to enlargement of the sphere of government, as a result of this, and the reaction has been to attack the integrity of the scientists who are bringing the problem to the attention of the people. Also, if the danger is in the future, based on theory, and is not related to their own personal experience, people, who are not well versed in the science, will find reasons not to accept it. Some on this web site and others, attack the basic established radiation science as invalid, because of their prejudice against the implications of the idea of AGW related climate change.
Initially’, in the 1980’s and 1990’s, this attack on the science, was lead by the energy interests in the US, who contributed to think tanks like CATO, Heritage, and Heartland Institute. These think tanks employed some like minded scientists to lead the denial of the science. Other groups opposed to big government have also chimed in. It is pretty clear that among laymen, there is a large correlation between political stance and one’s position on the science of global warming.
Once an argument has become political ideology, instead of being an intellectual discussion where logic and facts are examined with some objectivity, it becomes a shouting match. Personality clashes, and charges of lying and lack of integrity take over the discussion, and facts, logic and scientific knowledge become irrelevant. That is the polarized situation that we face today. It is not a pretty sight, and no way to properly address a problem of such complexity and importance to the future of the planet.
I am resigned to the invective that will come my way if this gets posted by the moderator.
Dr. Ravetz,
I find you and your PNS quite “special”, bless your heart.
Those of us from the Deep South will get that…
Bob Kutz says:
February 21, 2011 at 1:47 pm
“It’s so easy to condemn the evil ones and try to destroy them; that way we would still have the sectarian killings in Northern Ireland and probably a bloodbath in South Africa.”
Bob, I was responding to Ravetz’s above quote. He brought up “evil ones” not I. And I stand by what I said. I have not said any of the folks you mentioned are evil only that once you identify “evil” it cannot be tolerated in any way. If you think that evil should be tolerated so be it, but not I.
By the way it has been the CAWG crowd that has called for folks like me to be imprisoned, tried for treason, fired from jobs, etc. So far they may not be evil, but they are wrong.
Steven Mosher wrote:
I can see the sincerity in your words. Thank you for framing the context in your very experienced view.
I think the common ground has to be at some fundamental level or it will not hold. I think it only exists in the solemn starkness of what is unemotional rational independent thought. That area were men & women of ruthless logic are “bending over backwards**” to show openly to everyone how they can be wrong about their science. Common ground might exist if that commitment is sworn to.
Steve,
Don’t hold your breath. This has become a political and ideological question. In such cases, civility,logic and rational thought goes out the window. Prejudice and belief reign supreme.
I think Dr Ravetz is missing the point here.
To understand why this argument is so acrimonious, one must understand the history of the idea of GHG driven global warming.
The science of how CO2 influences the atmosphere dates from 1859, and has had general scientific acceptance. In 1896, Arrhenius made a calculation of how industrial emissions of CO2, which are added on top of the balanced natural cycle of emissions, would cause general warming of the earth. According to his calculations, using his estimate of emissions at the time, it would take thousands of years and doubling of CO2 would result in 6C average temperature change. Arrhenius and others, thought that the warming would benefit mankind, and no thought was given to limitation of emissions.
In the 1920’s this theory was sidelined, because erroneous measurements, seemed to show that the CO2 effect was already saturated. In the 1950’s this was shown not to be true, as a result of more accurate spectroscopy, and a more accurate numerical calculation showing that due to the temperature gradient with altitude, the effect of CO2 was not saturated.
Advances in computers and simulation since then continue to show that global temperatures will get warmer as a result of increases in GHG’s and the only uncertainty is how much warmer.
Two independent polls of active climate science researchers done recently show 97% accept that GHG emissions due to human activity are warming the earth significantly. According to a poll by R. Pielke Sr., about 1/2 of the researchers who filled out questionaires believed the IPCC report got it right, and about 20 percent thought they understated the damage to humanity of climate change, and about 20 percent thought the overstated it. So why is their such opposition to the idea in some quarters?
The answer to this lies in politics. If there is damage and it should be prevented, it would require cooperative action of the entire world, limitations of certain activities by government, and changes in lifestyle over time. One can expect a lot of opposition and suspicion among people opposed to enlargement of the sphere of government, as a result of this, and the reaction has been to attack the integrity of the scientists who are bringing the problem to the attention of the people. Also, if the danger is in the future, based on theory, and is not related to their own personal experience, people, who are not well versed in the science, will find reasons not to accept it. Some on this web site and others, attack the basic established radiation science as invalid, because of their prejudice against the implications of the idea of AGW related climate change.
Initially’, in the 1980’s and 1990’s, this attack on the science, was lead by the energy interests in the US, who contributed to think tanks like CATO, Heritage, and Heartland Institute. These think tanks employed some like minded scientists to lead the denial of the science. Other groups opposed to big government have also chimed in. It is pretty clear that among laymen, there is a large correlation between political stance and one’s position on the science of global warming.
Once an argument has become political ideology, instead of being an intellectual discussion where logic and facts are examined with some objectivity, it becomes a shouting match. Personality clashes, and charges of lying and lack of integrity take over the discussion, and facts, logic and scientific knowledge become irrelevant. That is the polarized situation that we face today. It is not a pretty sight, and no way to properly address a problem of such complexity and importance to the future of the planet.
I am resigned to the invective that will come my way if this gets posted by the moderator.
Mr. Ravetz, for a man advocating non violence, uses rather inflammatory language. Speaking of Willis he says… ”Of course he LOATHED HER for complicity in the great Warmista fraud, and he DESPISED HER for attempting to apologize for her actions rather than CRAWLING to WUWT in full contrition.
But he HAD TO ADMIT that he respected and admired her for guts in doing a Daniel act, and facing the lions like himself
At that point, non-violence in the climate debate was born. For Willis had realized that BAD people are not necessarily all bad.
There might even be some purpose in talking to them!”
Jeremy, why assign to people things you can not know if they did not state it. You have no idea if Willis LOATHED and DESPISED her, or simply did not approve of certain things she previously stated and actions she took. Willis did not HAVE TO ADMIT, anything, he chose, as he usually does, to be honest and up front in his thoughts. I also think that Willis has for a long time had the maturity to understand that “BAD people are not necessarily all bad. There might even be some purpose in talking to them.” I find your entire paragraph here to be presumptive and condescending and overly sarcastic.
Ron Cram says:
February 22, 2011 at 6:31 am
Ron, see my comment just preceeding yours. We are in agreement and I feel it is a very important point that must be made over and over. Mr Ravetz makes so many, IMV, illogical statements, because he presumes the policy is fine when it is the science, left as science, which must determine how “urgent” the need for action is needed, or not needed. He has the cart before the horse and conflates the two.
It seems to me that a lot has been written on this thread about Post Normal Science. I think that the idea is well intentioned. In many cases in modern society, because of the pressure of time, decisions involving science have to be made in a state where there is uncertainty. This calls for the use of a process Ravetz has called Post Normal Science.
The way I look at this, is based on my experience, in the semiconductor industry. Often, a decision becomes necessary when an anomaly is detected in the middle of a production process. It is not precisely known how much product has been spoiled, and what the impact on yield will be. Should the product be scrapped, should a sample be put through to test what the impact will be? Has something like this been experienced before. This is where engineering judgement comes into play, and an assessment of the costs to the company of different courses of action that might be taken. From what I have read, this is the meaning of Post Normal Science .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science
There is nothing sinister about this. It is a perfectly rational way to solve this kind of problem. There are disagreements among engineers about what to do. Because this does not involve ideology and personal beliefs, one doesn’t see the acrominous arguments that take place when such decisions have to be made in the political sector.