Guest Post by Jerome Ravetz
First, let me respond to Willis. I owe him a huge apology. Yes, I was reading his mind, when I had a vivid memory of some strong statements he made about Judith. Checking those, I could see that these were not directed at Judith personally, and that they were made in the context of his respect and admiration for her. That was on the 25th of February, and his comment on the previous day was a model of civility. This is not the first time that I have been misled by a vivid memory, but I do hope that it will be nearly the last. Again, my apologies. Willis is too important a critic of mine to allow these errors to get in the way of a discussion. Of him and of scientistfortruth, I can paraphrase the old Jewish motto and say, with enemies like that, who needs friends?
Second, on the issue of what the alarmists should now do, I would like to introduce another consideration as a justification for non-violence.
The climate issue is not a simple normal-scientific one of verification or refutation of an hypothesis. It has become a ‘total’ issue, involving policy, politics, investments and lifestyle; and it has a history. In that it is something of an ideology, or ‘ism’. In that respect it resembles the belief in centrally-planned economy on the one hand, or an unregulated-markets economy on the other. People become committed to a position, or defect from it, for a great variety of reasons. In one of my essays I distinguished between ‘climate scientists’ who are grappling with the manifold uncertainties of this very young science (of course I agree with Willis here), and the ‘global-warming scientists’, those identified by Mike Hulme as the key insiders for the IPCC. That was useful at the time, but I would say that it is overly simple. Corresponding to the complexity of the issue, there is a complexity of personal positions, each one involved in a personal, private dialogue.
Of course there will be people at the extremes, and they make the most noise. But what is so precious about the blogosphere is that they are brought out into debate (as Gavin now on Judith’s blog), and so those with all sorts of concerns and reservations can witness and assess the arguments. Three things are then in play. First, the ‘demeanour of the witness’ is used as evidence for the quality of their case. Those who bluster and accuse are interpreted as doing so to make up for the lack of good arguments. Then, equally important, those who are perplexed can watch it all, and use the debates as materials for their own reflections. And finally, even those who are deeply committed have a space where they can confront their doubts and reservations, and work their way towards a resolution.
It’s like the old fable about the contest between the wind and the sun, as to who could get the man’s coat off. In more modern terms, when the wagons are circled, all those inside have to conform, but when there is a ceremony of peacemaking, understandings can be created.
There is a question of what to do about those people who are judged to have been really bad in the past. On that I can only offer an example. In Northern Ireland, we have had the astonishing spectacle of a former Protestant bigot and a former Republican terrorist becoming close personal friends. The players were the Rev. Ian Paisley on the one side, and Martin McGuiness on the other. I have no idea what went on inside their minds; but somehow, without any fanfare, they achieved reconciliation.
Now, let’s see where Willis and I still disagree on this issue. (He clearly disapproves strongly of ‘Post-Normal Science’, an issue I do hope to address soon. And there is unfinished business on Truth.) Maybe it’s this. When AGW scientists (as distinct from climate scientists) are perceived by a broader public and by their less-committed colleagues as engaging in grossly inappropriate practices, their credibility will surely go. On this issue there is now a very effective ‘extended peer community’, with strong roots in the blogosphere but now including some mainstream media.
Of course, given that the climate issue is so total, it gets tangled up in other issues and recruited by people with other agendas; I personally am not comfortable at being on the same side as Sarah Palin, though others in the debate might be OK with this. So the issue will be decided, or is being decided, in the messy and highly imperfect way of all politicised issues. For me, the job of those of us who are involved, in one way or another, is to keep our debate as clean as we can, and that is why I consider my task to be promoting non-violence.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Might want to make it clearer that the entire post is from Jerome. At least I think it is. The author is Anthony, so maybe a note at the top saying “Jerome Ravets writes:” Fixed, thanks. – w.
Hats off to you Jerome Ravetz for making this statement in this forum.
Hi Anthony,
This was a very good article until the end. Could you please elaborate on your statement that you are not comfortable at being on the same side Sarah Palin? I think she get a lot of unfair press, and I think you should have kept her out of the article.
Jeff Wiita
Very good comment, except for this absolutely weird (stoopid?) comment:
“I personally am not comfortable at being on the same side as Sarah Palin, though others in the debate might be OK with this.”
WTF??
“Irrelevant” may have been a better adjective than “stooopid,” but maybe both fit.
Agree with Jeff W.
As to the substantive comments by JR: the problem is more fundamental: the presumption of being wiser than the norms. In this case, the norms of scientific validation. The Wisdom of The Progressives is not a viable substitute. For anything.
the job of those of us who are involved, in one way or another, is to keep our debate as clean as we can
Kudos! Often I’ve been tempted to unleash a rant, but chose not to. Ranting is rarely the way to change minds, and tarnishes ones credibility with the more astute readers.
Jeff Wiita says:
February 24, 2011 at 7:14 pm
“Hi Anthony,
…
Could you please elaborate on your statement that you are not comfortable at being on the same side Sarah Palin?”
Anthony didn’t write this article, Jerome Ravetz did. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/21/ravetz-on-lisbon-and-leading-the-way/
He’s British and as such likely only receives international coverage of Sarah Palin. I am not defending her but based on his comment, the media Jerome is exposed to likely doesn’t paint her in a flattering light.
I’m one of those who is uncomfortably being on the same side as Sarah Palin. That said I’m convinced Sarah Palin does not have any grasp of the subtleties of critical thought on CAGW, soooo I’m comfortable knowing sheees not on the same page as I’m on.
Don’t worry, honey; she never said she could see Russia from her back porch. That was a TV actress.
==========
Jerome says:
I have read no further into your comments than this. I want to say that your most gracious apology, perhaps more gracious than I deserve, is unreservedly accepted. Your actions are those of an honest gentleman with the courage to admit when he is wrong.
I will read and respond to the rest as time permits, but I wanted to get this in early and strong.
Much appreciated,
w.
Jeff Wiita says: (February 24, 2011 at 7:14 pm)
…not comfortable at being on the same side Sarah Palin? I think she get a lot of unfair press, and I think you should have kept her out of the article.
So do I, Jeff. That single observation destroyed what I was thinking was a nice, balanced, presentation (and apology).
johnb says:
February 24, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Anthony didn’t write this article, Jerome Ravetz did.
Thank you for the clarification. I apologize to Anthony. I should have known better.
Jeff Wiita
I am getting very tired of the cheesy attacks on conservative women. Only the great media could take a hard working woman and deride her and get away with it. If you wish to make a comment like that, at least investigate the issue as hard as you would AGW. I keep an open mind, but I believe in the saying. Believe little of what you hear, and half of what you read.
I’ll bet he didn’t like cheerleaders….
Post Normal Science
Rests On Compliance
Sceptical Ones Morn
Special Con Mentors
Ransom Science Plot
Enough with the violence straw man already. Dragging Northern Ireland into it is well beyond the pale. Nearly as bad as dragging politics into science where it has no place.
In a political sense, whom one is comfortable with is a very normal response.
Some of the greatest heated debates are produced by those who get along perfectly outside of debate.
And that is also a dynamic, as a politician whom one is comfortable with today may raise your hackles tomorrow
… and vice versa.
Blather on as if you have something to say. Is this the English way? Or is that what you mean by post normal science.Talking all arround the facts does not change them. And in the allusions to the IRA are you implying that the IPCC team are terrorists?
From where I sit in the north, Palin Derangement Sydrome is a clear sign of a weak mind.Or was there some other point for introducing your view of the lady to the above drivel?
“Don’t worry, honey; she never said she could see Russia from her back porch. That was a TV actress.”
I had a bet with my friend in California if he could accurately describe a single position of Sarah Palin’s. Needless, to say my very “educated” friend could not.
The actual quote:
““They’re our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska — from an island in Alaska.”
I’m still entirely confused about how a debate that occasionally descends into personal insult can in any sense be characterized as “violent”. What does that even mean?
Well actually no. I can tell you from here in Australia, irregardless of the level and volume of inappropriate practices, the likes of Tim Flannery, David Karoly, David Pittman, Ove Huge-Guldberg et al still dominate the media and the publics ears, especially those who are young. The blogosphere is still largely irrelevant.
Why is this happening after so many instances of inappropriate practices Dr Ravetz? IT’S BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO SHOULD HAVE SHUT DOWN THE EXTREMISTS REFUSED TO DO SO, NOT A WORD, NOT A LETTER TO AN EDITOR NADA NIL ZILCH.
You are complicit in the shenanigins by your silence over the years. This PNS of yours is PNS because of the politics involved. The shenanigins IS the politics and you and others like you were SILENT.
I suspect the reason why Paisley and McGuiness ended up having an ale together is because they realised they had a COMMON GOAL. That goal was the well being of Ireland and the Irish.
I suggest people like you and Willis have a common goal, science, GOOD science, HONEST science, OPEN science.
So I ask you Dr Ravetz, are you willing to DENOUNCE the shenanigins of bad climate science practitioners? are you willing to denounce their past, present and future shenanigins widely and often? Not just in the blogs but everywhere you have a voice?
The Irismen got together because both sides denounced the violence, and put down their weapons. Willis has already, often and loudly denounced not just the language, but the weapons (bad shoddy science) of the perpetuators, the Team if you will.
Are you willing to do the same? Are you willing to, lets say co-author articles with Willis detailing and denouncing such wonders of science as the Hockey Stick, the Decline and the very many studies purporting the evidence of AGW (see Willises last post)?
If yes, we have a chance and I like this post of yours.
If no, we have no chance and this post of yours is just more hot air designed to bide time, keep the sceptics at bay until the politics can be rammed through.
Once bitten Dr Ravetz
What’s wrong with being on the same side of an issue as Sarah Palin? The truth is the truth. Picking sides rather than seeking the truth is what led to Climategate.
mcates quotes Palin:
“They’re our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska — from an island in Alaska.”
There was a skit by actress Tina Fey that made fun of Palin. But IIRC, Russia is visible from Little Diomede island – an Alaskan island.
Sarah Palin may not be my choice as a candidate, but I am disgusted with the Alinsky-style demonization of anyone who is perceived as a political threat. The attacks against her are dispicable.
Sweet. But I’m not buying this for a second. If the winds were not shifting, this sugar-coated letter would never have been written.
Post-normal science = Lysenkoism. And Ravetz knows it.
“There is a question of what to do about those people who are judged to have been really bad in the past.”… “achieved reconciliation” …
Reconciliation with those who have abused the scientific process, the funding, and the data is applying the wrong law to the situation. There needs to be a simple process of legal consequences for the misdeeds, to repay the debt to society. Instead, those who have shown dispassionate axiomatic rigor in science and respect for the law should be recognized for their contributions at this point. Begin with John Christy and Anthony Watts.
Jerome Ravitz:
I have to agree with Baa Humbug. Either denounce bad science [science which avoids the scientific method], or you’re nothing but a charlatan.