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.
Willis,
I think you misunderstand Dr. R a bit.
lets go to the text:
What Ravetz says here is that your communication was his first experience of non violent communication in the climategate debate. not the debates leading up to climategate. Also not the first instance ever. But his first experience. And he calls you a fire eating champion. I pretty much take that as a compliment. Non violent communication is not, we shall see, about speaking meekly. So I agree with this fire eating both in form and content:
here is you:
Returning to Ravetz:
I think Jerry exaggerates a bit ( perhaps for effect) when he says you loathed her.
Especially when you titled the post ” Judith I love ya but”. So, he notes,
“willis loathed her, but” I’m surprised more people havent seen how Dr. R
turned around the but.
basically Willis you wrote: ‘I love you, I respect you, now listen up you stupid ….” Kinda having it both ways. And within the essay you do attempt to have it both ways. Praise followed by a pistol whipping. Maybe you didnt loath HER, but the behavior did make you sick:””It turned my stomach”. Watching Ravetz turn this around, to “he loathed her, but” was fun for me. But most people didnt get this.
Still this is NOT violent communication. on either side.
And you did take her task for failing to have full contrition. I’ve done the same thing.
We ask the warmista to disown certain people. That’s par for the course in political fights. Break up the tribe. Likewise I’ve been asked to disown Anthony and Steve Mc.
I find these kind of requests dont really move things forward. Its a game of gotcha.
choose your friends or the truth, hypocrit.
Some more examples from you:
As I’ve said I’ve done the same thing. Admit that Jones was wrong! and I hear back, “admit that Monckton is wrong.” But what does this personal touch add? WHY do we personalize it ( on both sides) basically, we know that people will bend over backward to defend their friends, their partners, their tribe. We dont ask that Mann be denounced because TRUTH will be served. We dont ask that mann be denounced because its the scientific method to denounce a man. We wanna score points. If we wanted a return to normal science, we would just argue for a return to normal science and take the personality out. And as we wanna score points, they wanna score points.
So, denounce the dragon sky or dragon slayer guys. Denounce the barycentric supporters and iron sun supporters. Off with all their heads. blah blah blah
To end with a wrap up of how you treated judith lets go to this:
hmm, see we have to make space for making an honest mistake. Good for you in doing this with the edit job.
So basically I think Jerry has a pretty accurate view of your attitude. Maybe Loathe was too strong a word. maybe it was too sly of a rhetorical device for folks to get.
Finally, lets get to the meat of the point. What was different about your communication. What was Jerry praising.
On this thread folks have asked what non violence is. It really starts with something this simple. You recognized that bad people are not all bad. And there might be a purpose in talking to them. That’s it. very modest start.
BECAUSE, if you think that the other side is ALL BAD, if you believe there is NO PURPOSE in talking, then the debate IS over, and force will be applied.
Like I said before this debate has devolved to a point where some see the other side as monsters. sub human. all bad. There is no point in talking to them.
Dr. Jerome Ravetz, Tallbloke, Steven Mosher, others. There are many thought out articulate expressions critical of PNS. One theme is most common, and that is the corrupting of science, and the scientific method by integrating it with policy.
I have heard none of you address these concerns directly.
If you claim PNS to be simply opening any important scientific concern to different hard sciences, (Biologist, chemist, meteroligist, statisticians, etc) all working together under the scientific method, then this is tautology and needs no new theory, it just needs to be adhered to. If you consider policy makers opening lines of debate to disparate sectors of the society and calm rational debate to be desireable, then this also needs no new theories and is tautology.
Below is a partial summary of those who in essence see the comingling of policy and science into PNS as counterproductive, consider the policy debate, premature, and feel that the failure to do so has resulted in the IPCC. You will need to address these post directly, not just mu summary, if you wish to sway thoughts, although perhaps in carefully reading them, you may sway your own thoughts.
Barry Woods says:
February 21, 2011 at 1:28 pm
It is my view that most CAGW skeptics seek to defend science Whilst there are many thousands of scientists practicing ‘climate science’ how many are at the core of it? If someone is investigating the effects of climate change on, hurricane formation, or the migratory patterns of birds, or many of the thousand of other subject areas like this
So whilst thousands of scintists are working in ‘climate science related areas…
How many are actually working at actually demonstrating the theory, with observed evidence.. and most importantly the degree per doubling of CO2 (AGW is true, whether in the actual complex multiple mechanisms in the climate, the answer is 0.1C, 0.5, 1.0C, etc, it is the actual values we are all arguing about,
Where is the work to show this, beyond every more complex computer model scenarios and ‘projections’ and requests for faster computers. For the next IPCC report 600 pages please on attribution, 60 on the rest. WG2 and WK3 are just premature.
flicka47 says:
February 21, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Social “policy” and science should never be mixed.
s with the stance taken by the skeptics as being the right stance.
ScientistForTruth says:
February 21, 2011 at 3:08 pm
There have always been disagreements in science, often quite healthy. The problem with Climategate and the rancour that there is in climate science is to a degree the responsibility of Jerome Ravetz who infused the concept of values into science, and blurred the lines between science and policy.
johanna says:
February 21, 2011 at 4:19 pm
We are familiar…with the use of reconciliation and non-violence to resolve intractable disputes in the political sphere… But science? What possible relevance could this approach have to science?
—————————————————————–
That, Dr Ravetz, is the $64,000 question. And the answer is – none.
It is the conflation of science and politics/ideology that got us into this mess in the first place.
Geoff Sherrington says:
February 21, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Dr Ravetz,
You drop in now with talk of violence. This is a straw man. Think logic, not violence.
The discussion is about the proper application of science, the procedural stages of which are well known and have been for years.
Theo Goodwin says:
February 21, 2011 at 5:41 pm
As regards scientific method, the problem with the Warmista is that either they are ignorant of scientific method, like Ravetz, or else they understand it but refuse to discuss it because they know that their own so-called science has never existed within the bounds of scientific method.
bob says:
February 21, 2011 at 5:58 pm
I don’t see how science or scientific views can be negotiated. As a matter of fact, that cannot happen and science be meaningful .
Brian H says:
February 21, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Going easy would be easier if PNS didn’t come with SO much poli-sci baggage. The bottom line is that if the facts are questionable, and the analysis is dubious, and the data accumulation is a long-term project, then society and politicians are just going to have to deal with it.
cirussell says:
February 21, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Mixing leftist political mumbo jumbo with science is a very disturbing thought. Mr. Ravetz appears to be a master of this nonsence.
Steven Hoffer says:
February 21, 2011 at 8:25 pm
….This is when Jimmy DEMANDS that there be a recount. After all, the number of blocks is not going to change, counting again will show if there are 13, 14, or 15 blocks.
Jimmy goes to the corner for not playing nice with the class….
John Whitman says:
February 21, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Amongst you lengthy post I discerned two false premises…
The implication you make is science cannot get to a sufficient operating level of objective truth in climate ever so act now; therefore you infer human knowledge must remain essentially subjective on climate
THANKS FOR THIS JOHN. It shows the fallacy of post normal science is rooted in destroying the very strength of science (verifiable, repeatable, empirical observations and experiments etc) in the scientific method. It is the attack on the scientific method that is the problem, and there is no common ground in defending this attack.
memory vault says:
February 22, 2011 at 12:12 am
Mr Mosher – there IS no “common ground” between those of us interested in the truth and armed only with the scientific method and observable fact, against those interested only in a political agenda of “what best for the rest of us” and armed with the full weight of the MSM, politicians, the law enforcement agencies, a totally corrupted education system, well-funded advocacy groups, and – to date – some $70 billion in taxpayer’s funds for “research” into predetermined conclusions.
Ron Cram says:
February 21, 2011 at 10:19 pm
For example, was it wrong for Douglas Keenan to point out some scientific claims made about data were not true and to press his allegations of academic misconduct against a climate researcher? Or was he right to do what he did? Isn’t the incivility the trampling of the standards of science Keenan was complaining about?
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 22, 2011 at 12:51 am
…
I see the problem as being bad science being hyped by climate scientists to push an alarmist agenda. I think that until climate scientists start doing honest, transparent science, with all warts visible and all data and code archived, until then there is no hope of trust in climate science.
wayne Job says:
February 22, 2011 at 2:42 am
Dr Ravetz, Sir,
I have only major concern about scientists coming to terms in peaceful negotiations, and that is that they must all be scientists or followers of the scientific method. Those who do not follow scientific practices and fudge, cheat and hide their methods are not scientists,
ThomasU says:
February 22, 2011 at 3:09 am
Mr. Ravez is confusing and mixing things and gets it wrong:
Michael Larkin says:
February 22, 2011 at 6:20 am
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.
David says:
February 22, 2011 at 6:30 am
“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.
Ron Cram says:
February 22, 2011 at 6:31 am
I am convinced that where the discourse goes off the rails is when scientists quit talking about science and begin talking about policy. It will only recover when enough scientists focus on the science and ignore those talking about policy
steven mosher says:
February 22, 2011 at 12:04 pm:
I’ve been thinking. i know the minute I try to tell people how to act, that they will be able to find me doing the very thing I am complaining about. There is no getting away from that. When I was asked to attend the conference, I wrote down my position.
It came to this. I don’t think we are even ready to talk about “reconciliation”. I think the best we can do is outline behaviors which make the conflict worse. I know those behaviors. I’ve engaged in them. Some people might think I’ve perfected some of them. But still, upon reflection, I’m more happy with the friends I’ve made than the enemies. Thanks Lucy. More thinking..
—————-
Love it! I fully agree, and look forward to your further ruminations. I very much regret a couple of intemperate comments made in the past here at WUWT.
Martin Lewitt says:
February 22, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Steve Mosher,
“Here’s a thought. If your theory is that we return to rational discourse by engaging in counter punching, hitting back, invective, insult, motive hunting, ect.. How well is that theory holding up? err not too well.”
I say there isnt; you say there is. That’s rational?
Of course there are some people who engage each other rationally. But I would not say there is plenty of that. I would say, there is little of it. There is a lot of gainsaying.
I say no, you say yes. crowd cheers you. I am discredited. blah blah blah.
you say it’s going to take
A. the science getting “settled”
B. discrediting the ‘debate is over’ crowd.
Well, I’d say this. The science is never settled. What actually happens is that over time fewer and fewer scientists see any benefit in questioning the science. It becomes accepted knowledge. Now, to be sure, cranks still waste their time questioning it, but few people pay them any notice. And more importantly they get ignored by engineers who have to make things that work. That’s why, for example, engineers who work on missiles, and radar and cell phones and satellite accept the core physics of radiative Transfer. Not because the science is ‘settled’, like some legal case, but rather because the science works.
As for discrediting the “crowd” who says the debate is over, Do you really think a conversation flows out of that? “hey look, I know you are completely discredited, would you like to talk?” not likely. What’s better is a recognition that saying “the debate is over” was an mistake. But if you want to make it a moral issue, then I’ll predict that no one will want to confess to making that kind of error.
Steven Mosher,
Mine is one of the quotes you include, viz: “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.”
You ask me to consider how Dr. Ravetz would react to this, and how they would play with the crowd.
Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn how Dr. Ravetz reacts to it, and nor do I give a damn what “the crowd” thinks about it. I’ve said what I think, just as did Ravetz. I don’t believe what he’s ostensibly trying to do will work, and I’m not at all convinced he’s sincere. I wish both you and Ravetz would spare me the moralising and disapproving tone. It becomes neither of you.
Dr. Jerome Ravetz
Do you teach at Oxford? My Daughter Nalini Asha Biggs, is getting her PHD there. She thinks the science is settled and places like WUWT are oil funded right wing propaganda. If you contact her could you giver her a different view?
Judy’s take is this:
“Ravetz’s take on this is a bit strange. Willis and I have a long blogospheric history, going back to my first posts at climateaudit in 2006 on hurricanes. our exchanges have been cordial. This particular essay of Willis got him some MSM attention, and for a while he seemed to be playing up the attacks on me. But that has settled down. Ravetz seems to like the Curry as heretic narrative.”
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/21/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-xii-ravetzs-lecture/#comment-45519
To Dr Ravetz
I appreciate your comments on WUWT following the climategate, when you were underlining all deficiencies of some UK/US scientists as exposed by the e-mails.
the referral to Arhenius and CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa do not ‘settle’ the climate issue. These points would IMHO only convince quite naive observers.
I understand somehow the concept of post normal science in those cases where no actual scientific experiment is doable, such as astrophysics and decade long climate forecast, because any experiment would last decades, or we only have one Earth ; otherwise, the referral to values and high stakes would not make a difference to any other scientific field, ot to normal science.
The high stake parameter leads to the precautionary principle ; the ‘only’ issue is that remedies may make more pain than good (see Guklani on this) ; this is all about hell being paved by good intentions, or, as Lindzen expresses it, a priority given by affluent populations to ‘feel good’ actions at any price (i e paid by others)
Environmental advocacy groupes were happy with PNS because that allowed them to get invited to the negocation table ; PNS was so to speak practised by IPCC key leaders who invited many more NGO (and media) representatives to Climate Summits than governmental reprensentatives ; these NGO reprensentatives were probably in a position to exert some physical pressure on government represntatives. Then NGO are unhappy when other non academic come and ask for the same right : to participate to the debate. M&M – and any other – get nicknames ; their intervention is ridiculed because they are no climate academics and do not publish : NGO demonstrate that they only take PNS when it gives them a sort of monopoly. This does not strengthen the concept of PNS which becomes one-sided.
For climate, it’s striking that :
– scientists make an horrendous, unwarranted, use of statistical methods : due to values which entitle them to hijack statistics ?
– model based projections get called experiments ; as Spencer wrote recently, it’s impossible for the time being to have a paper published comparing the IPCC climate projections since 15 years with actual facts
– actual experiments such as CLOUD @ur momisugly CERN in Europe receive little attention from so-called top journals such as Science or Nature, or from prominent environmental journalists
I love the idea of non violent confrontation of ideas ; nevertheless I still dont’ see how to make a sensible use of your concept of PNS, which was recently mainly used to justify unwarranted climatic claims
Steven Mosher,
Why do you bring up a strawman like “radiative transfer”? That is the part that the models probably do well. A different matter might be whether the models properly couple that to the surface with albedo specific to the wavelengths involved, or to the complex surface of the ocean, but neither is the core scientific issue, which is the net feedback.
When extreme claims are at issue, sometimes the science is settled in the sense that those making the claims can’t credibly cling to them anymore.
“As for discrediting the “crowd” who says the debate is over, Do you really think a conversation flows out of that? “hey look, I know you are completely discredited, would you like to talk?” ”
They would have to be the ones asking to talk, and be willing to accept the increased scrutiny their work will receive, if they want to be accepted as scientists again. Yes, they might have to address the substance for awhile, and respond to criticism openly and on point.
One might also look to Henry David Thoreau for insight into the nexus of non-violence (e.g., his protest of the Mexican-American War) and natural science (Walden, as a start, of course).
old engineer says:
February 22, 2011 at 11:04 am
Non-violent communication does not evoke violent response.
– – – – – – – – – –
Is the science settled on this? {wink} Because I don’t think it holds for everyone who’s capable of violent responses. To construct an example, a sociopath with a hair-trigger temper may become so frustrated by a victim’s failure to rise to his taunting that he might then commit violence.
Dr Ravetz:
You could have been more convincing a peacemaker if you had said:
“In the 1990’s we looked at the Arrhenius model of a greenhouse planet, the Mauna Loa data re CO2, and the warming trend of the last two decades and naturally became concerned that we were headed toward a CO2-forced apocalypse. But then the planet stopped warming, now for 15 years, and we know something more complicated must be going on. We had better slow down our destruction of the carbon-based economy, before we harm the weak and the poor, and get the Science right.”
Remember the true Precautionary Principle: “Look before you Leap!”. That includes destroying a great and successful wealth-producing carbon-based economy before you have demonstrated the efficacy of the alternative.
“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’.”
Straw man alert. No one would claim otherwise. Science is “messy”. Alert the media.
“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.”
Normally that would be the way it works. But, in the case of CAGW/CC/etc. the scientific process was subverted. For one thing, CAGW became (and still is) a cash cow. Peer review became pal review. As Alarmist views became more prominent, the herd instinct began to take over, meaning even those with doubts would go along to get along, and so as not to rock the boat. Skepticism, instead of being welcomed meant becoming a pariah, with connections to Big Oil/Coal, and right-wing think tanks.
The damage to science has been done, and the ramifications will be severe and long-lasting. Talking “nice” won’t change that. Alarmists are going to have a lot to answer for and soul-searching in future years. Some should see stiff penalties, and possibly even jail time.
As for reconciliation? No way Jose. There is simply no compromising on the truth.
Dr. Ravetz,
Your attempt to “get people talking, and eventually framing particular scientific questions on which agreement could in principle be reached” is a worthy goal. During my youth, when I was doing product and process development, I found using a communication style that lead to dialogue vs. debate to be more effective in developing the critical thinking that was needed to come up with the questions.
I was surprised to see your- “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.”- comment. Having made a few honest scientific (and engineering) errors in the past I have personally never had an issue with an explanation of the error. I always thought it was assumed that scientific integrity required me to document the error, recommend actions to correct it and have a design review with the groups that used the information from my model as an input into their models to see if additional actions needed to be taken to address the error.
k winterkorn says:
February 22, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Dr Ravetz:
You could have been more convincing a peacemaker if you had said:
“In the 1990′s we looked at the Arrhenius model of a greenhouse planet, the Mauna Loa data re CO2, and the warming trend of the last two decades and naturally became concerned that we were headed toward a CO2-forced apocalypse. But then the planet stopped warming, now for 15 years, and we know something more complicated must be going on. We had better slow down our destruction of the carbon-based economy, before we harm the weak and the poor, and get the Science right.”
Remember the true Precautionary Principle: “Look before you Leap!”. That includes destroying a great and successful wealth-producing carbon-based economy before you have demonstrated the efficacy of the alternative.
Sorry but your proposal is based on factually incorrect premises.
The evidence shows that global warming has been continuing for the last 15 years. The temperature trend line does show a nominal positive slope, but the 95% uncertainty bar does just touch zero. If you reduce the required statistical uncertainty to a few percent below 95%, you will conclude that there has been warming. In addition if you take out the natural exogenous factors such as El Nino’s and volcanoes, there has been a consistent and significant warming trend.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/phil-jones-was-wrong/
In addition, the theory of global warming does not rest on the thermometer record. It is based on the physics as represented in the models, and the ice age record which confirms the range of climate sensitivities which scientist have been predicting from their simulations. The models also show that without GHG emissions by humans, the temperature increase of the past 40 years cannot be accounted for. Both Natural and Anthropogenic forcings are needed to explain the global average temperature changes in the last century.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Bruce Cobb says:
February 22, 2011 at 12:33 pm
eadler says:
February 22, 2011 at 6:51 am
“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.”
Yes indeed. The idiotic notion that our C02 is some sort of threat to the planet is both political and ideological, and the irrationality of Warmists is testament to a belief system which is beyond the pale, and itself poses a grave danger to humanity. Fortunately, there are many skeptics/climate realists challenging that belief system, which is now foundering.
You’re welcome.
Bruce,
The history of the idea of global warming shows that the science is not political. It dates back to England in 1859, when John Tyndall determined that trace gases in the atmosphere are keeping the globe for becoming inhospitable to life, keeping it warm during the night. In 1896, Arrhenius calculated that industrial emissions are going to make the globe 6 degrees warmer if CO2 doubles. He calculated that it would take a few thousand years. In his mind this was a welcome effect. In the 1950’s better spectroscopy and computers which could model the atmosphere in 1 dimension, confirmed these old ideas. In the 1970’s 3d models of the earth provided more confirmation. The scientific basis of these ideas had no politics associated with it. In fact ,according to 2 independent polls, 97% of active climate scientists accept AGW, because the evidence for it is compelling.
I would argue, that there will always be skeptics, but the 3% are a tiny tail that shouldn’t wag the dog. They do have some worthwhile arguments against some of the scientific results that seem to confirm AGW, but in the main, AGW has stood the test of time in the opinion of the body of climate scientists. Most of the skeptical arguments have actually been knocked down in the peer reviewed literature, but most of the skeptics don’t seem to know this. For this reason, it is important to continue a civil scientific discussion in blogs like this one.
It is hard for many of the public to swallow the need for changes in lifestyle and increased government action, if it is based on complex physical theory about what will happen in the futrure, and is not strongly by their immediate personal experience. They are given ample justification for this attitude by the small percentage of genuine scientific dissenters, and the larger number of ideological opponents, aided by propaganda manufactured by special interests.
Cynthia Lauren Thorpe
Add this one to your deer story…USF&G has just decided that in order to protect the Spotted Owl they are going to kill the Barred Owls,which is a neat catch-22,as they’re thought to be two sub-species of the same species.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/260150/killing-owls-save-owls-lou-dolinar
Ron Cram says:
February 22, 2011 at 10:19 am
Dr. Ravetz,
I forgot to mention one other extremely important propositional statement:
7. Post-normal science occurs in cases where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent.” In science, the first of these three apply almost all the time. The claim that decisions are urgent (such as Jim Hansen’s statement to Barack Obama that he only had four years to save the world) has not been shown and has no credibility. Therefore, the goal is to return to a normal science situation as quickly as possible.
Don’t pick on Hansen. He isn’t the only climate scientist who believes that the situation is urgent.
Roger Pielke polled research climate scientists who published more than 50% of their papers on climate science. He found that a little more than half accepted the IPCC report as accurate, about 20% found it understated the problem and about 20% thought the problem was overstated by the IPCC.
So it is true that 100% do not believe the problem is as urgent as the IPCC report says it is, but a large majority of them do. If you were running a business would you wait to make a decision until you had 100% agreement among the technical experts you consulted? I certainly wouldn’t. I would swallow hard and do what needed to be done if they said the survival of my business depended on taking their advice.
Bob Kutz
OK, I’ll go along with calling them just stupid….
Hey! Wait a minute! I thought the AGW crowd of scientists were calling themselves too smart to be ignored!!
Seriously though, stupid or evil, the results of the policies they demand be enforced are evil, so they are either too proud to back down from what could quite realistically cause the starvation of millions. Or do not care what their preferred policies will cause.
So, even if they are just stupid, the results of their stupidity is evil.
I do not seriously think too many folks are evil with a capital “E”. But the cupidity and hubris is pretty amazing. “Lets talk nicely with one another, and come to a conscensus. But while we’re doing that with you “skeptics”, we’re going to continue to push our preferred policies, because we are right…(and we don’t care how many of you think we cheated to get the answers we did & we’re not going to provide our work either!)”
So, is there a way around their stupidity? Other than to convince enough folks that what they have planned is not the answer? Because it looks like these folks have too much invested to see the stupidity/evil of their answer to the problem.
The question is actually much simpler than presented above, and does not require any sort of facilitation or refereeing; the ordinary canons of science will suffice.
Since the most rigorous statements of any scientific theory are mathematical, we can agree that the current generation of IPCC computer models constitute statements of the AGW hypothesis, though they vary in particular parameters. Thus the output of these models constitute testable predictions.
They have failed, spectacularly, in every respect.
End of story.
The Wall Street Journal has its Barrie Harrop, and WUWT has its eadler.
If I were scoring, I’d say that Barrie is the less incredible of the two. At least he has an economic self-interest in his alarmism schtick.
As for Ravitz, all he has to do is to demand, first and foremost, that the scientific method – which has lifted humanity out of the Dark Ages – must be the basic required criteria for science, and superseding all the “postnormal” BS.
Simples, no?
johanna says:
February 22, 2011 at 8:02 am
eadler said:
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.
———————————————————-
First of all, could I share with you my irritation with the term ‘the science’, which is about as (no, less!) meaningful than ‘the pink horned unicorn’. The pink horned unicorn might possibly exist. ‘The science’ is an oxymoron. One of the two words has to go, for either to have any meaning.
I am sorry that you are irritated. Climate Science is a recognized branch of Physics. The fact that you are irritated about it, doesn’t matter to the Universities and scientific organizations who recognize it. Clearly from a procedural stand point it has theories that are based on physics, and observations are made that are compared with theoretical calculations.
While people like Anthony are not living (sorry owning, only dropping in now and then) in $20m mansions on the coast in California, I won’t bother with the nonsense about rivers of gold to those who disagree with the so-called consensus.
You are replying to an allegation not made – a straw man argument. I never said that everyone who objects to AGW is being paid handsomely by industry. There are people who earn a living from think tanks supported by energy interests, and tobacco companies by objecting to AGW , but I didn’t claim that all do. Some have scientific objections, and others are acting out of political ideology.
Finally, the correlation between people’s political views and their opinions on CAGW is nowhere as clear cut as you imagine. In the UK, while all major parties subscribe to this nonsense, most voters, across the board, do not. I will not presume to comment on US politics, which is much more complicated than choices between 2 parties – but the punters are not buying it, that much is clear. In Australia, the conservative parties came within a whisker of winning the last election on a skeptical policy platform. The Labor Party is now doing everything in its power to slow down and sideline mad policies which will hit its working class base, while trying not to lose face.
In Australia, Green voters are mostly affluent inner city dwellers who (a) can afford doubling of power prices and (b) wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the bush.
Of course the correlation in the US is not perfect, but it is very strong and compelling. Check this Pew Poll out:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1780/poll-global-warming-scientists-energy-policies-offshore-drilling-tea-party
% %
Do you believe the earth is warming – Dem Y 75 Rep Y 18
Because of human activity 53 16
Do Scientists Agree that the earth 59 30
warming because of human activity
I can’t find similar data for the UK Australia or Canada.
It would be taxing WUWT readers (and me) to run through the rest of the errors in your post. But, please do not imagine that silence is assent.
Your track record at finding errors in my post is so poor, that you really shouldn’t tax yourself any further.
eadler,
One reason why so many climate scientists think the IPCC report is accurate or underestimates the dangers is because they have never seen an unbiased assessment with significant involvement by skeptics and lukewarmers. The large number of skeptical papers published since 2007 ought to make the next assessment much less alarmist. Given the IPCC’s propensity to focus on alarmist papers and to ignore skeptical papers, we cannot trust them to provide an unbiased AR5.
Please see my proposal here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/a-modest-proposal-in-lieu-of-disbanding-the-ipcc/
I’ve done this many times on many threads here at WUWT at Judiths at Tamino at Shewonks. Yes the warmists misunderstand PNS as well.
If you like I will start again from ground zero.
Michael
Actually, Micheal I asked people to consider your comment as a piece of writing from a rhetorical perspective. That’s not a moral perspective and there is no disapproving of you. What I mean is this. When I ask people to look at the rhetoric I mean they should look at the basic aspects of rhetoric. Who is the speaker and how does he present himself? Who is the intended audience? what is the purpose of the communication? what devices are used? is it EFFECTIVE.
What you have said is that Ravetz is not your audience. You dont care what he thinks. And the crowd here is not your audience. You “said what you think” just to get it off your chest. You have no intention of convincing anyone or reasoning with anyone or entertaining anyone or any of that. You dont care how your audience reacts. This is NOT what ravetz has done. He has not simply said what he thinks. He is trying to have some effect. on you. on me. Now, you seem to argue that you just wrote to “say what you think” Self expression. Written for yourself to yourself. You don’t care what effect it has on others. Why then do you care that I understood or misunderstood it?
Quite simply, its very hard to maintain that you just said what you think. Why say it here? You come here for a reason. You write for a reason. I don’t judge those reasons.
As a piece of writing, however, I’m wondering what effect you expected that piece of writing would have?
You see the difference between judging your words morally and using them to ask “what was your purpose?”