Post Normal Ravetz Rumpus

Nicely said Willis!
Brings one of my favorite aphorisms to mind:
Reality is the stuff that’s still there even when you stop believing in it.

The Independent, like the Guardian, carries a brightly flaming torch for climate alarmism. I have yet to see a balanced argument on AGW come from either rag. Anyone who views Connor’s post normal BS as a triumph for science and truth is deluding themselves.

The issue remains: what is so different about climate science? It was a start to see that the argument is similar for a public health issue.
Now take the question of saturated fat, cholesterol, heart disease and statins. You will find that all the same issues arise. It is hard to connect saturated fat consumption to cholesterol, its also problematic to connect that to heart disease, and then we find that statins have their own risks, and that when we add cholesterol lowering properties to them, the death rate rises. So do we, or do we not, have a case for abandonning our recommendations on lowering saturated fat consumption? Do we or do we not have a case for mass dosage of the middle aged with statins?
You will find the same issues of uncertainty, of interest groups (drug suppliers, dairy producers, the corn and soy lobby). There is the same issue of decision under uncertainty when the scientific data is only part of the issue, because there are other public health issues involved like cancer rates and obesity. Something similar happened with MMR vaccine.
In short, the situation in terms of climate is unusual for science because it is a relatively small number of scientific hypotheses that get involved at the center of public policy debate. But it is absolutely standard for public policy debate involving scientific or other issues where the facts are arguable and uncertain.
Prof Ravetz is missing the point because he thinks the issue is about science, he then takes one particular situation, the public policy one, and then invents this nonsensical post normal science concept. In fact, what he needs to focus on is the absolutely standard situation of public policy decisions under scientific or other uncertainty.
The issue is not about science, or climate science. Its about public policy. The sooner we realise that and stop looking for something different in modern science, the better. We just need to think hard about how to make public policy decisions where the facts and outcomes of choices are uncertain and the costs either way very high.
There is however nothing post normal about this. Imagine the shift to the Dreadnought, or to oil fired battleships, or the decisions on developing the atom bomb. The situation is entirely normal. The question is only how to handle it better.

I think this post by Dr. Ravetz is significant for two reasons.
The ‘communications department’ of PNS undoubtedly assumed that they could manufacture the political consent to support whatever they desired with a combination of a ‘consensus’ peer review and publishing process and controlled media campaigns. As in the AGW project. But the new world of peer review and publishing on the uncontrollable blogosphere, as on this site, threw a monkey wrench into that plan. Back when “the science was settled” the AGW team was in a state of aggressive denial about that. Then they reacted with more hostility and attempted dismissals as irrelevant, incredible, Big Oil, and all that – a place where only “deniers” lurked. That didn’t work. Now we have Dr. Ravetz arguing his case here. Sort of like Caesar crossing the Rubicon in reverse. The world is turning. Looks like the blogosphere could be relevant after all.
Second, Dr. Ravetz’s posts here are bound to be part of some future historical analysis of PNS and the AGW project.
So congratulations to Dr. Ravetz for making what I hope is a little history and to Anthony for being the ‘chosen’ blog.

If Dr Ravetz didn’t mean to imply that he is (was) a Quaker, why on earth did he mention attending a Quaker school? This is an example of his prose, which is so convolute that my eyes tend to glaze over at about the mid point, but in the interests of fairness, I forced myself to read the entire epistle. When he admits ‘mind reading’ again, as in his having to deal with comments he ‘remembered’ Willis uttering, I gave up my attempt to make sense of his article. He reminds me of a former NZ Prime Minister who was famous for incredibly long and complex replies to simple questions, summed up by a wit of the day who said
“By the time he has made a reply, I have forgotten what my question was!”

Dyson was wrong to cut and run when the questions became too difficult. Remember the derision that was heaped on James Cameron when he pulled out of that debate with Marc Marano? Well, now Dyson has done the same – but not a word of criticism on these pages. Instead Steve Connor is called a ‘hack’ for asking difficult questions.
The question Dyson baulked at was this –
“The mainstream estimate suggests that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels would increase global average temperatures by about 3C. If you accept that CO2 levels have never been higher, but not that global average temperatures have increased, where has the extra trapped heat gone to? Can we deal with this before we go on? ”
To which Dyson refuses to answer, saying that he would prefer to talk about something else. He then changes the subject and talks about Wegener’s theory of drifting continents. What has that to do with price of eggs?
Dyson then says that he doesn’t believe there is any ‘trapped’ heat because he doesn’t like computer models. But he has already conceded that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the planet and that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was before. To declare at this stage that there is no trapped heat is thus a non sequitur.
So, the question remains on the table. It requires an answer. None of the commentators so far have ventured to answer it.
Has any sceptic got an answer? Or would you prefer to talk about drifting continents?

Forgive the longest post I have done, but please read if you ever found anything I had to say of value. The entire issue of PNS and CAGW is rooted in these conditions. ‘facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent’ and the PNS theory from there moves to how to create policy in such a situation. An example. Some volcanoes in Iceland erupt and send ashes into the flight pattern of air traffic. It may be ok to fly, it may not be. The reward risk to the airlines is plain. Suffer the inconvenience of postponing flights and losing a modest amount of business, or risk the death of hundreds or thousands of passengers and millions in lawsuits and financial ruin. Easy decision correct?
Let us hypothetically make it more complicated. Let us suppose that if we do not fly there is a fair chance that hundreds will still die, and we could still suffer millions in lawsuits and face financial ruin. So a simple fact becomes clear. The greater the risk of the prescribed policy, the greater the need for certainty in our decision.
Every decisions we make in life as individuals and societies is based on such discrimination of weighing the cost benefit of our actions, so in reality there is nothing post normal about it, and the term PNS is of necessity vague, as at what point such a circumstance is reached, “‘facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent,” is going to be different for different people.
In the case of CAGW the policy prescribed, in and of itself, places values in dispute and has high stakes with very uncertain results.
I maintain that the answer to such a situation lies in protecting the science as it is classically defined, as the better the science is done, the more capable we are to determine how objectively urgent the actions or policy is. Take another hypothetical, that of a 1 kilometer wide meteorite headed towards the earth at 60,000 miles per hour. Only good science and mathematics can tell us if it is a real threat and if we can do anything about it. The bigger the meteorite, the greater the need for accurate science to both determine the threat level, and our ability to respond. The decision of what to do becomes more difficult if we perceive that the meteorite has a 50% chance of missing us, and our attempt to move it through atomic bombs has an equally large chance of causing some large pieces to hit us, when if left alone it may miss us entirely. What if one country wants to nuke, and another says no way, we will attack you if you try, we think your accuracy with the nuke could just as easily hit the wrong side of the meteorite and kill millions.
The above situation is admittedly very difficult, yet still, the better the science, the better the chances are of making the right decision. Now to move from the general to the particular. Fortunately we are not faced with the meteorite decision in the case of CAGW, although a relatively small group of scientist decided we were, (see the Wegman report) , They quickly gained the support of a large group of people, (centrist politicians) who found the actions they recommended to be harmonious with their view of how societies should operate. One of these scientist, James Hansen, talked extensively about the need for action and indicated that within a couple of decades New York would be underwater. One politician who liked the idea of central power, Al Gore, supported policy which would give central government on a national and international level, and made a movie about the issue of CAGW and talked of sea levels rising twenty feet. The example of these two men, one a scientist, one a centrist politician, became a microcosmic example for the summary writers that formed the IPCC, demanding action now. In unison they presented to the world a hockey stick shaped graphic that proved how mankind’s actions had created unprecedented changes in climate.
Here we are decades later, and the failed predictions of disaster are becoming more apparent every day. The hockey stick is discredited to all but a few. Yet the proponents of CAGW only dance faster. The pace of warming stops for a decade, and the term “global warming” is out, climate change is in. The predicted disasters fail to manifest, and so now, failing to get warming and failing to get accelerated mega disasters, common extreme weather events are being touted as proof of CAGW. Unusual snow for one or two years is now proof of global warming. All of this with no evidence of an acceleration of such events anomalous from many other periods of extreme weather, or indeed, any proof of an acceleration of extreme weather in general. Events we have always had, become proof of CAGW, an utterly and completely unscientific proposition. Many of the proponents of CAGW, who hate capitalism and America, go to the poor in third world situations of natural disaster, and taking advantage of their tragedy tell them that the evil industrial people like Americans caused their hurricane or drought, and they should be compensated.
And rational people understandably say as did Willis, “I say that if there are PNS situations, we need to recognize the dangers, double down on the science, and not substitute “quality” and excessive caution for science” and another poster states, “But I am convinced that the best way forward is to show that urgent decisions are not required and that allows us all to go back to normal science.” and myself, quoting Revetz; “When facts are uncertain, when values are in conflict, when stakes are high, when decisions seem urgent, the FIRST casualty is “normal” science. “ 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” Many others state this as well.
The response to this from a luke-warmist who I admire is shocking. Steve Mosher states “how exactly do you propose to show that? By forcing them to do the science you want? your way? That sounds like bending the science to your political will…”
Steve this is easy, you expose the bad science, you show that sea level rise is not accelerating, you show that warming is slowing or even stopped from it peak 13 years ago, quite simply, you use good science (Lindzen, Spencer, Idso and thirty thousand other scientist) and real world observations to show that action is not urgent and CO2 is beneficial. You do not force them to do science “your way, you do FORCE them to do science according to the “scientific method” with complete openness of methods, data and metadata. This is not bending them to an individuals way, this is bending them to the scientific method which they abandoned.
Steve Mosher goes on, “ Here’s the problem. Once science has been politicized you cannot “simply” return to normal science. It takes the use of power to do that. Are you going to force Hansen to think differently? defund him? defund all the scientists who believe action is required? Stop all science ( thats way abnormal). Sorry, the return to normal science is not a simple re virgination process. Its inherently political. post normal.”
Mr Mosher, you have presented here an irrational straw man in somehow claiming that a call to return to normal science to better determine if actions are urgent, is somehow a call to “stop all science”. It is very obviously not. And yes, you do investigate these scientist through the political process, and not with a white wash, and you do demand openness and a return to the scientific method. Scientist and the public who do not agree with Hansen’s choices of policies, which mimic the actions of a totalitarian regime, the “Peoples Republic of China” whom Hansen holds as an example to emulate, will be resisted. Do you think only those who are proactive CAGW supporters have the right to policy “power’ and “force”? Are those who say that they do not think action is urgent, powerless? And hell yes, you do attempt to defund many “what if” studies, so more research can go into what the real climate sensitivity to increased CO2. Does only the people that predict disaster have the right to form policy? Damm it Steve, this is as old as civilization; “When first the tyrant appears, he is a protector” Plato.

It is perhaps indicative of the fuzzy netherworld that Dr Ravetz’ arguments inhabit that he should even mention the Connor/Dyson exchange. But, like his perverse Sarah Palin reference, and his unsubstantiated (by his own admission) attack on Willis, there seems to be one in every statement – an off the wall comment based in personalia which is irrelevant to the issue under discussion.
The Connor/Dyson exchange was a grotesque exercise whereby a journalist who is not fit to tie the bootlaces of the interviewee launches a series of harangues – pre-scripted by others as he is not a scientist – which make no attempt to engage with what the interviewee is actually saying.
Connor’s technique is familiar – on Dr Judith Curry’s recent descent into the maelstrom of believers (see her blog), she was bombarded with – but have you read this, this and this, and if not, how can you comment? – none of which had anything to do with the point she was making.
Connor is a lousy journalist, as well as an arrogant jerk. He had the opportunity to engage in discussion with one of the most powerful and interesting minds in science, whatever Dyson’s views on this or that issue might be. He blew it in favour of bombarding Dyson with propaganda and demanding responses to each point that someone else had written for him. I think that Dyson was remarkably polite and tolerant, and also has been around the block enough times to recognise a tyre kicking time waster when he meets one.
As PPs have said, the sincerity of an individual’s belief in no way correlates to the accuracy of that belief.
None of this has anything to do with proper discussion of ‘post-normal science’ (an oxymoron, IMHO). But perhaps it is an indicator of the mindset of at least one of its proponents.

The problem with the AGW crowd is that they seem to think we don’t care about the planet which is completely wrong.
Fossil fuels may well increase CO2 and cause issues…or not depending on your views, however I think we would all agree that there are real poisons and nasties emitted from vehicles and factories that we could all do without.
We are suffering from so many allergies it is obvious that there should be alarm bells ringing with regard to fossil fuels.
But what is our response?…don’t do this…don’t do that…. and only the rich who can afford to pay carbon offsets can travel etc etc.
Aside from human health and the state of the planet we have the not inconsiderable problem of perpetual war for oil.
It simply is not good enough,
When asked about the AGW issue a former UK politician Michale Portillo said “if the technology that mankind is using is causing a problem then change the technolgy”.
It’s a simple enough message.
Three years ago BBC;s Top Gear featured the Honda Clarity a hydrogen powered car and it got the thumbs up for all concerned. S

Bomber_the_Cat says:
February 26, 2011 at 2:49 am
Dyson was wrong to cut and run when the questions became too difficult. ..
The question Dyson baulked at was this –
“The mainstream estimate suggests that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels would increase global average temperatures by about 3C. If you accept that CO2 levels have never been higher, but not that global average temperatures have increased, where has the extra trapped heat gone to? Can we deal with this before we go on? ”
So, the question remains on the table. It requires an answer. None of the commentators so far have ventured to answer it.
Has any sceptic got an answer? Or would you prefer to talk about drifting continents?”
Bomber it is a Childs question, and a quite insulting simplistic and false statement, the very words of which are not an attempt at dialogue. ““The mainstream estimate suggests that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels would increase global average temperatures by about 3C.” This is completely false. The premise is wrong and Connor knows it. The doubling LWIR radiant effect from doubled CO2 is not 3 C, it is about 1C and all moderately informed know this, including Connor. (Apparently you are not even moderately informed) This garbage premise shows complete lack of sincerity in dialogue. Any one with minor knowledge knows the issue is feedbacks and other aspects of physics besides straight radiation, like cloud formation, location, and convection, and their affects on SWR and heat loss, evaporation and hydrologic system latent energy transport effects, etc, which can easily overwhelm the straight radiant CO2 effects.