WUWT is the focus of a seminar at the University of Colorado

This bothers me in so many ways:
– That, as evidenced in events like the Lewandowsky paper, climate scepticism is framed as some kind of pathology (“what to do with the contrarians?”)
– The assumption – again! – that “science” is some kind of homogenous entity – (“others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them”) and contra to the sceptics.
– That our contributions are now being analysed (“discourse analysis of seven posts including almost 1600 user comments”). Something I’d have no problem with ordinarily (I write bots to do exactly the same thing to trace how stories or information is spreading and where from). But it suddenly feels a little oppressive and Orwellian given the above assumed pathology.
– “avowals of distrust can be seen as linguistic perfomances of accountability, forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again.” – I thought that WAS the essence of the scientific method? It worries me that I’m increasingly encountering this slack post-normal attitude to science. A few years ago had a falling out with an ex-girlfriend who is a microbiologist over a campaign she was supporting for science funding in the UK. The promo page contained several outright economic falsehoods and on the grounds that they would not correct them I refused to support the campaign. She said “but its for a good cause…”. I’m really starting to worry hearing that type of reasoning from people who really should know better…..
– “the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis” – huh? The discourse is more important than the science (discussion of which is “obsessive”)?
– “in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.” – Good god. I’d like to know what they mean by “ideology” here as I don’t think it will match up with my own expectations of what it means to follow the scientific method given the above….

stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted
Here she is dead wrong. Science is not an ideology and should not be communicated as such.

Science as an ideology? Really? I think ideology should be separate from science, but perhaps that is a result of my time. I think science and engineering principles are not about what you believe or want to be true, but what data, observations and experiments demonstrate. Nature is not what you want it to be, it’s what it is. As an engineer or scientist, it is for you to determine from these things, not to project upon.
Gerry Parker

Finally, it is concluded that the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis

Hilarious!
Franziska thinks that climate change discussions (discourse) have been stifled by skeptics wanting to discuss the science.
It doesn’t get any better than that? Perfect material for a Josh cartoon.

@Leif
I was wondering about the ‘ideology’ thing myself, then thought perhaps she was referring to the principles that scientists are supposed to adhere to, and I think you could argue that’s an ideology.
The first definition I came across is this: “the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group”
Assuming that were allowed to drop myth and belief I’d probably accept that definition, but ideology is a fairly loaded word and wouldn’t be one I’d use for preference.

forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again

Yes, science SHOULD be forced to prove its reliability and integrity every time it makes a new claim.
Someone claiming to be performing “science” doesn’t get a free pass simply because past scientists were able to build television systems or put men on the moon.

“Finally, it is concluded that the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.” – U of C Journalism(?) Staff 2012
“It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.” – Joseph Goebbels 1934
I fear memories, especially at university, are growing shorter every day.

Everything has been hijacked as part of an overriding ideology.
The blogosphere is the only significant remaining arena of free public discourse.

First i read about us being heretics in the Guardian and now science is an ideology. I’m getting worried.

“climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis”
Social science is not a science, and consequently this person has no idea how science should be conducted. It is totally absurd that “social scientists” would pretend to pass judgement on others participating in a scientific debate as if there could ever be too much discussion of the science basis of a theory.

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 1, 2012 at 10:07 am
stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted
Here she is dead wrong. Science is not an ideology and should not be communicated as such.
====================================================
Right, but what is traditionally thought of when referencing climate science is an ideology. And then there’s the ideology which believes science should have a large role in human governance.

Skepticism as post-normal science? Hey, I thought that was the label WE gave THEM and their denial of the scientific method!
Some interesting perspective here in regards to alarmism and the agenda’s on-going attempts to re-define how science is communicated and what its meaning is. No doubt, they would wish for a new way to perform & communicate science that doesn’t have to include such things as…the scientific method, which requires skepticism, rebuttals of postulates with facts, etc. They desire science to be not so much about science, but about dictatorial & essentially religious declaration.
This sentiment is not original…I can’t link any other sources at the moment, maybe someone else can, but we’ve seen these types of calls made numerous times already. These sentiments, put into words and posed as a question, as they are, are essentially a call for proposals. That’s a good way to think about it.
They have a program, a desired end point, like any project. It has been on-going for some time, but with real science entering the debate through blogs such as this and the many others, and more and more proper skeptical papers coming out showing that there is essentially zero evidence to support the alarmist or even the vanilla AGW agenda, they’re putting out a call for proposals for someone to invent a new way of doing science. We all know that, truly, these people hate science with religious-like zeal. They thought they could just hijack it and create a *simulacra* of science and that would be enough…the stupid sheople wouldn’t figure THAT out. And they succeeded with many stupid sheople…which apparently tend to a leftist orientation, although, perhaps this is an unimportant observation…then again…
In any case, the internet and the free flow of information it provides has provided a medium for rationality among a large enough number that has obviously been too great for them to overcome. They’re obviously losing and the public support just isn’t there. That is directly thanks to blog sites, to a large extent at least. They know they can’t shut down the internet and properly scientific skeptical blogs – although I am sure they have thought about it – so now they want to modify their modus operandi from merely creating a simulacra of science & reality, to re-defining science altogether. You can hear the desperate plea in her words: “We need science to be dictatorial; skepticism can not be part of the future of science; those in the position to do so will tell you what the appropriate things to think are; etc.” Once this is in place, the existence of blogs won’t matter, because the idea that science involves questioning and skepticism will be removed from the public conscious. This is essentially, and really quite directly, straight out of 1984. They’re still using the standard play-book.
Her talk is a call for proposals: how do we redefine science so that it is devoid of skepticism? With religion, that’s how. And they’ve got a good start on that one as well.

The media serve to inform, entertain, educate and provide a basis for discussion among people.
That would be the ideal. But how close is that to reality? Howard Beale (as written by Paddy Chayefsky) summarized the trustworthiness of media best in Network (1976)

Howard Beale [addressing audience on live TV “Network News Hour”] So. A rich little man with white hair died. … And *why* is that woe to us? Because you people, and sixty-two million other Americans, are listening to me right now. Because less than three percent of you people read books! Because less than fifteen percent of you read newspapers! Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube.
[strolling through audience] Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn’t come out of this tube! This tube is the Gospel, the ultimate revelation. This tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers… This tube is the most awesome God-dxmned force in the whole godless world, and woe is us if it ever falls in to the hands of the wrong people, … this company is now in the hands of CCA – … And when the twelfth largest company in the world controls the most awesome God-dxmned propaganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what sh!t will be peddled for truth on this network?
[ascending the stage] So, you listen to me. Listen to me: Television is not the truth! Television is a God-dxmned amusement park! Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We’re in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth… Go to God! Go to your gurus! Go to yourselves! Because that’s the only place you’re ever going to find any real truth.
[laughing to himself] But, man, you’re never going to get any truth from us. We’ll tell you anything you want to hear; we lie like hell. We’ll tell you that, uh, Kojak always gets the killer, or that nobody ever gets cancer at Archie Bunker’s house, and no matter how much trouble the hero is in, don’t worry, just look at your watch; at the end of the hour he’s going to win. We’ll tell you any sh!t you want to hear. We deal in *illusions*, man! None of it is true! But you people sit there, day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds… We’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here. You’re beginning to think that the tube is reality, and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you! You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube, you even *think* like the tube! This is mass madness, you maniacs! In God’s name, you people are the real thing! *WE* are the illusion! So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them off! Turn them off right in the middle of the sentence I’m speaking to you now! TURN THEM OFF…
[collapses in a prophetic swoon as the audience erupts in thunderous applause]

So, whenever you hear some pure-as-snow statement like “The media serve to inform,” keep Howard in mind and know that the media will tell you anything you want to hear and others want you to hear.

“the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis”
Perfect, that would be the goal; to keep draconian regulations from being enacted until it becomes painfully obvious to nearly everyone that they’re too stupid for words.
” and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.”
Actually, I have to agree. An ideology being basically a set of beliefs that determines ones perspective and actions, therefore, the ideology of science would be one of rigorous experimental methodology, objective observation, and transparency in all activities from data collection to conclusion. So, a change in communicating and enacting that ideology is definitely called for when “scientists” stifle debate, make back room deals, hide declines, cherry pick data, fabricate memos, etc. etc. A change to open debate, open source, WHOLE TRUTH science would be refreshing indeed.

Sure, let’s communicate the science. However, let us do so according to the late Dr. Richard Feynman’s admonition: (paraphrased) with all the uncertainties, the short-comings, known errors and inaccuracies.
In climate science, we skeptics strive to point out the tremendous failings, including the horrible temperature data, the massive data manipulations and statistical mischief and nonsense, and then the utter failure of badly-formed models to predict essentially anything.
How would it be if we built nuclear power plants by using the identical standards of the climate scientists? Which of the true believers would have their homes next to and immediately downwind from such plants?
Or, oil refineries, or chlorine plants, or biological weapons plants?
For that matter, who would drive across a bridge, knowing it had been designed and built to the IPCC consensus standards?

“Furthermore, avowals of distrust can be seen as linguistic perfomances of accountability, forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again.”
I’m almost positive that readers of this blog don’t believe science needs to prove its reliability again and again. You have -people who disagree over physics, people who think climate science is overly politicized/bunk, people who think climate science is fine but the claims people make about global warming are bunk, people who think cost/benefit favors inaction and people who think warming is something to be encouraged.
Aside from climate science posters show a healthy skepticism of social science and other fields that have a large number of confounding variables, are highly politicized, occur over long time periods and have a poor predictive rate. In harder and more tested fields (engineering, evolution, etc) posters show alot more appreciation for science. Just because skeptics may suffer from confirmation bias doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason behind it!
“Finally, it is concluded that the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.”
The time for that was the 1960s. We’ve had a ton of ecological doomsday predictions since then without having a doomsday. Somewhat unsurprisingly people have come to the conclusion that any prediction that has a whiff of doomsday about it is crap. It doesn’t help that the environmentalist movement leapt onto the issue- its anti-technology attitude, hodge podge of social movements and contridictory goals repells alot of the people here.
In short, better science communication will have no effect because the problem isn’t science communication. This site wouldn’t exist if global warming was just “the planet is warming”. The problem is global warming is “the planet is warming and we must do something about it”. As long as the “something to be done” is completely unhocked from reality and little more than a green wishlist, skeptics and denialists will treat it for what it is- a blatant political ploy. And once it is a political ploy, both sides will tighten ranks, lessen standards, view the opposition as evil, view their position in apocalyptic terms… you know, what generally happens whenever politics is injected into anything. Attempting to overcome that by changing the format you communicate science is a bit like yelling louder a a foreigner on the assumption that deep inside he really knows English.

“…it is concluded that the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis…”
This is part of verification you idiot. If a proposed mechanism can not stand up to scrutiny, then there is pretty good chance that there may be something drastically wrong with it.

Science is not a thing, it is a way of seeing.

I thought science was an objective method for trying to understand the universe. The phrase, “forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again” just blew me away. As an earlier commenter said, that is the ESSENCE of the scientific method, is it not? This phrase reeks of a scentific establishment whose word is not to be questioned. Dissent is “post-normal science”? I don’t think so, it’s just plain old vanilla science.

I’m with davidmhoffer (10:26 am) and polistra (10:29 am). Much in the press release is disturbing, but this is personal:

In the context of climate change, one question has arisen from recent events: what to do with the contrarians? Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them.

Hollender may be just the messenger in this talk, presenting what she’s learned about, well, climate anticontrarians. But whether or not she’s in on the conspiracy, I don’t want anything done with me. Not by that crowd, anyway.

@ wobble says: September 1, 2012 at 10:29 am “because past scientists were able to build television systems or put men on the moon”
I appreciate your sentiment but as is so often the case these days you conflate science and engineering. Television systems and landing on the moon were primarily engineering feats, if the fundamental tenets of the scientific method are not present you are probably talking about engineering.
Science fundamental tenets.
a) Hypothesis/theory
b) experiment
c) conclusion
d) published data
e) replication/verification
Science by it’s nature is fundamentalism as stated above.

“””””…..Finally, it is concluded that the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted……”””””
I believe a strict translation of this sentence from the original in the Austrian Language (ask Obama) reads as; “We have to pass it, to find out what is in it !”
Well excuse us Franziska for having the temerity to think science discussions should be about science; NOT social studies !

She’s got that right. Just wait til she sees what is coming up next. – Anthony
Anthony you tease, what are you up to this time…?

@ Mike D in AB says: September 1, 2012 at 11:08 am I would like to see a concise definition for “post normal science”
Science fundamental tenets.
a) Hypothesis/theory
b) experiment
c) conclusion
d) published data
e) replication/verification
Science by it’s nature is fundamentalism as stated above.
Post Normal Science tenets.
a) Hypothesis/theory
b) experiment (this can be a computer model not an actual experiment)
c) conclusion (or a statement of belief/consensus)
d) published data (keeping data secret is ok or using computer model data is ok)
e) replication/verification (not required)
Post Science by it’s nature is liberal as stated above any or all caveats listed above may be used.

PS I have to echo Richard III above; just what the hell is “post normal science” ?
On the one hand we have the lawyers jabbering to each other in mediaeval Roman mumbo jumbo, designed to obfuscate; and then we have the “Science” peer reviewed literature crowd, who are in constant competition for the Bullwer Lytton prize , aka the bullshit prize. The abstracts of peer reviewed science literature papers, seem to be where the publishers of new editions of the Oxford English Dictionary, find their most fertile breeding ground for English Language expansion; as if we didn’t have enough words already.
I’m sorry if the good citizens of Vienna are being taxed to support Ms Hollender’s fliegende fancies; but why should the US taxpayers or the Colorado taxpayers also support an outreach expansion of her sphere of influence ?

I see from her facebook page abve, that she is pursuing a course designed to achieve permanent unemployable status, and a post doc gig swilling at somebody’s tax trough.

Can a “Social Science” PhD thesis FAIL…from lack of “Scientific Method”….
and any pretense of objectivity ? ? ?
Regretably….i can only BOO loudly from 1500 miles away.

Well, I think the REALLY big problem here is everyone seems to think that somehow science is something of itself or some truth.
The big claim of evil here is that we skeptics somehow are acting on faith or using an act of faith for our position when we are not!
The problem here is the hypocrisy of this so called scientism.
In the nutshell since one has not done the science and does not have the firsthand knowledge of the quantum mechanics or even behaviors at the molecular level, then the it is clear that people accept AGW by making an act of faith on their part.
In other words, we don’t have a time machine to go back and witness that thermometer reading in 1930. We have ONLY the witness and testimony of what someone wrote down in a book. Not only must we rely on that person reading that thermometer in 1930 but we do NOT have a time machine to go back and repeat that event.
In fact, what those supposed “scientism” people don’t realize that is that they are reading something form a book that is based on the witness and testimony of someone else. And even WORSE is that testimony is past tense and thus is historical in nature.
At the end of the day, there actually nothing wrong with making an act of faith to Accept some paper or something written in a book.
The BIG PROBLEM IS these VERY SAME people run around criticizing people for making such act of faith when in fact that is what they are doing! It called hypocrisy!
In other words, the issue is not so much that people are making an act of faith there, but they are in effect lying and refusing to admit they are making an act faith to hold their position!
We skeptics use evidence and fact finding no different than the rest of the science community the only difference is we realize that such evidence is based on the witness and testimony of others, and as such we have to accept such witness and testimony of these people.
Science is not some special thing on to itself that is some SEPARATE truth here. Well over excess of 90% or even more we know is accepted on faith since we not done that science are self.
In fact, the very reading of an instrument is a past tense event witnessed by someone else. We have to make an act of faith to accept that witness and testimony. This simple fact an observation applyes to science as well as everything else in life.
The idea that we skeptics don’t use evidence and reasoned thought without evidence is perhaps one of the greatest lies perpetrated against a skeptic community.
However worse this lie against us skeptics is the HYPOCRISY of the science community that is it is somehow NOT making acts of faith and accepting the witness and testimonies of others to present these historical events in some book that we read.

>>>jbird says: Why would anyone want to go to this?
Good point. I might go because Anthony would like a “mole” to report on the proceedings. However, because of the distance, it would chew up much of the day.
There’s lots of seminars at the U of C, NCAR, etc., and some of them are pretty good – I went to one last month about detailed observations of an Earth-grazing asteroid. I gravitate toward the observationally based talks, but won’t waste the bus fare on some nonsense modeling studies (which is saying something, since my bus fare is free).
As for something about stifling the ideology of science, well, not sure if I want to torture myself by attending, but then, it might be like going to a Klan rally to see what goes on and I could learn something about “post-normal science”.

If one looks into the history of the “science” of sociology, one will learn that it was the creation of Marxists. It was developed as a tool to change society into a Marxist state. Holding a Marxist world view is a sure sign of damaged cognition. Most sociologist think with a Marxist world view. Therefore most sociologist are insane.

I hope Hollender is reading this. Some self-analysis would not go amiss.

George and Richard read the comment linked to below
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/01/wuwt-is-the-focus-of-a-seminar-at-the-university-of-colorado/#comment-1069431

Wow.
In the context of climate change, one question has arisen from recent events: what to do with the contrarians?
That formulation of the “one question” says it all.
Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them.
Evidently, none in the circle that this d!p$#!^ travels in proposes that there is any value in listening to dissenting opinion. Except insofar as it is to research innovative methods to quash same, of course. Wot wot.
They serve as extended peer communities as put forth by post-normal science, however, blog users themselves do not see post-normal science as a desirable goal.
Yes, we tend to see normal science as a desirable goal.
Furthermore, avowals of distrust can be seen as linguistic perfomances of accountability, forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again.
Yes, normal science is only valuable to the extent that it is reliable and has integrity. It is properly referred to as “science”.
“Post-normal science” is not science. “Post-normal science” pretends to be science, when it is actually a political propaganda technique invented by a Communist to advance leftist political agendas under the imprimatur of “science”. It derives its value from its ability to trade on the reputation that science has earned for reliability and integrity, while adhering to neither. It would be more honestly titled “Post-science politicking”, but it is not. Not surprising, given that its adherents freely admit that the willingness to trade honesty for political effectiveness is in fact a component of “post-normal science”. That is what allows them to justify “telling scary stories” to drive decision making according to the dictates of the decidedly non-scientific “precautionary principle”.
For further exposition of what “post-normal science” is, simply look at how its proponents discuss it:
Finally, it is concluded that the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.
1) Discussing the science basis is an obstacle to “post-normal science”.
2) Science is an “ideology”
3) This ideology is to be “enacted”.
‘Nuff said.

Did she get her ideas from the same “skepital” blogs as Lew…y did ?

Methinks Dr. Hollander is in urgent need of a deprogramming intervention …

Post normal “science” isn’t science. But neither is economics or archaeology or a host of other very useful subjects. So that doesn’t mean I personally think it is “wrong”, what is wrong is suggesting it has anything like the credibility of real science. Post normal science or “soft-science” might be a better name, is “science” without the verification (which is essential to science hence the “science”.
Perhaps a good analogy would be between criminal law (proof beyond reasonable doubt) and criminal law “on the balance of probabilities). Science requires assertions based on proof beyond reasonable doubt using tested hypothesis. Science-lite/soft-science/post-normal science is using science like methods with a much lower standard of proof (much like the climategate inquiries .. sorry, the climategate inquiries were “couldn’t be proven to have lied and cheated” … it’s more honestly saying something, or using best judgement.)
Soft-science is a subject that allows assertions without factual basis, so long as there is a reasonable argument based on science, not a scientific argument which is one that asserts only what can reasonably asserted from the evidence and tested hypothesis – but an argument using less rigorous standards like e.g. found in archaeology, applied to science.
Why? Well in areas like the climate, you can’t test your assertions. It’s more like geology than a science. The academic can’t manipulate what is going on to test a theory, and data is slow to arrive.

Someone has asked for a definition of post-normal science. Let’s try: when facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent, the paradigm-based puzzle-solving research confined to closed sets of practitioners is not adequate. We can call this a ‘post-normal situation’. Then there must be an ‘extended peer community’, using ‘extended facts’ which include traditional research results along with open criticism, plus data from non-traditional sources, and expressions of value commitments. Also, in such circumstances there is no possibility of results approaching truth to the same degree that is possible in traditional science; hence the debate will be about the quality of results. This is inevitably complex, since all scientific results depend on arguments where imperfect data and imperfect inferences are combined. Experience has shown that in such cases, which include all areas closely connected with policy, the ‘extended peer community’ plays a very positive role, not merely in legitimating accepted results but also in criticising controversial results. This practice of open debate, which is realised on the blogosphere with salient examples like WUWT, is post-normal science. Of course PNS is open to abuse, but then so is the closed-community practice of normal science, especially when it is closely tied to policy. For a good example of PNS in action, there is Phil Tattersall’s ‘Community Based Audit’ that operates in Tasmania. He has shaped his work by thinking about PNS.

I’m in Denver, Anthony – and I used to live in Boulder. I will happily attend and report. Drop me a line via my facebook email (Orson2) for further contact information, if you wish.

Leif Svalgaard says:
September 1, 2012 at 10:07 am
stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse, there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted
Here she is dead wrong. Science is not an ideology and should not be communicated as such.
______________________________
Thank you. That is exactly what I zeroed in on.
I even looked up the definition because I could not believe that was what she was saying.

Ideology [ˌaɪdɪˈɒlədʒɪ]
n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies
1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
n pl -gies
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a body of ideas that reflects the beliefs and interests of a nation, political system, etc. and underlies political action
2. (Philosophy) Philosophy Sociol the set of beliefs by which a group or society orders reality so as to render it intelligible
3. speculation that is imaginary or visionary
4. (Philosophy) the study of the nature and origin of ideas
ideological [ˌaɪdɪəˈlɒdʒɪkəl], ideologic adj
ideologically adv
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
ideology
the body of doctrine, myth, symbol, etc., with reference to some political or cultural plan, as that of communism, along with the procedures for putting it into operation. — ideologist, idealogue, n. — ideologic, ideological, adj.
See also: Politics
the body of doctrines, philosophical bases, symbols, etc., associated with a particular social or political movement, large group, or individual. — ideological, adj. — ideologist, n.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ideology

It certainly makes it clear that we are talking about two different definitions of “Science.”
I even found them.

According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is “knowledge attained through study or practice,” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html

They seem to consider the first definition where “science” is “knowledge attained through study…”, that is handed down by the high priest of academia.
We consider the definition of science to be the second definition: “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.” (And it worries me that this is the second and not the first definition)
This moving away from the rigorous definition of science can also be seen in this essay where the author acknowledges the above definition and then come up with this interesting modification of the definition.

Journal of Theoretics Vol.1-3, Aug/Sept 1999 Editorial
What is Science?
It continues to amaze me how many “educated” people do not understand what Science* is or what is meant by the term “scientific method.” …
One of the best descriptions and explanations of the current concept of scientific method is interestingly found in the Appendix E of Frank Wolfs’ website.
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. [so far so good G.C.]
But in order to realize whether this is a valid concept or not, we need to understand what Science really is….
Let’s say that I am an archeologist and that I hypothesize…. [example]
The scientific method is fine for experimentation but it is inadequate in determining what is Science. In the past if a discipline could not be subject to the scientific method, it was not Science. Therefore, I would like to propose that the scientific method should only be applied to experimentation when appropriate and not be used in the determination of what is or is not science, nor should it have any application in defining what is a hypothesis, theory, fact, or law.**
In terms of the definition of what is or is not a Science, we need to find a definition that is timeless and few could argue against. One of the best way to understand the current definition of something is to look at its history (ignorance of the past will lead to mistakes of the future5) but I will leave that for a book on the subject because even though it is engrossing reading, it can get lengthy. I would like to propose that we define Science as the “the field of study which attempts to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part.”* Though simple, it is an encompassing and elegant definition, as we will see….
Why do I think that it is important that we all be on the same page in our definition of Science?
* I am a stickler for being exact in our communications because if we do not have the same definitions then we can not communicate accurately and if we can not accurately communicate then we can not progress.
* By defining Science accurately, it is easy to see that scientific theory, fact, and law can be developed and verified totally outside the walls of the academic experimentalist and the scientific method.
* By knowing what academic disciplines are Sciences, we can better approach or attempt to describe and the universe in a more organized manner thereby maximizing the progress that mankind can make in developing his knowledge base.
It shows us that hypothesis and theories are not the sole purview of the experimentalist with his/her scientific method.
* It is only through the field of Theoretics that we can get a logical overview of Science from which we can all get on the same page and allow Science to progress in all of its facets.
* I only hope that all will become involved in Theoretics so that we can all be on the same page in our definitions, coherent and logical in our arguments and theory development, and rather than being petty, look at what is the best for Science and Mankind.
JP Siepmann, Editor
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-3.htm

And there went the rigorous definition of science down the rabbit hole of Post Normal Science. In this definition there is NO TESTING of the HYPOTHESIS!

The temperature alone spanks her ilk. Those who worship faux art and faux science have finally bankrupted a generation of college kids and their parents too just as something called the Internet revealed their identities and academic connections in a permanent and uncensored archive along with juicy financial records with long strings of zeros. The backlash has barely begun. If the Randians about to win a landslide let us innovators innovate instead of ban manufacturing further, maybe we can inflate away the debt but I’m too pissed off to ever hire a liberal arts major. Need I mention that I became an adult bachelor again just as big city women threw their sex into environmental fascism? Yeah, that type of pissed off!

I plan to attend this seminar. Will report here as I did on the NOAA seminar previously. “Science as ideology.” Indeed.

richardscourntney’s cautions are something to take seriously.
Prof. Max Boykoff spoke to the Denver Cafe Scientifique last June. http://cafescicolorado.org/Flyers/Cafe%20Scientifique%20Flyer%20Boykoff.pdf
Boykoff is a social scientist in charge of teaching many courses in environmental studies – my field of science – especially the intro level courses on climate change at the University of Colorado at Boulder. No doubt the speaker Hollender is appearing because of him and his recent CUP book, “Who speaks for the climate? Making Sense of Media and Climate Change.”
http://artsandsciences.colorado.edu/magazine/2011/12/who-speaks-for-the-climate-2/
I found his presentation to be epiphenomenally pretentious, and irrelevant to the real – and much more important – scientific debate. Furthermore, he invokes authority on behalf of those doing (politicized) climate change research – another one of the dangerous and familiar arguments from authority – cf, Courtney – and therefore dismissed instead of understood and dealt with honestly, as real scientists do.

So they have read your blog without actually reading your blog. How can they do that? These people seem to have their heads so far up their assets, they can’t tell real science from ideology, nor recognize rational discourse, nor the right to even question. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THESE PEOPLE?

Can I take it then no one involved with this event has actually contacted Anthony for his thoughts or comments?
Contrarians? Aren’t those the people who actually want to make decisions based on honest and verifiable science?
If you view honest and verifiable science as the problem……

Here’s the Post Normal Science garbage in a nut shell.
How do we make decisions when:
o The stakes are high
o The matters urgent
o The facts uncertain
This is the founding premise of Jerry Ravetz’ PNS bullarky. It is a logic process that he then uses to argue that requires action on CO2 mitigation. It is a logic process that surprisingly intelligent people buy into without thought. It is was lead The Economist to suggest that we need to take draconian measures on CO2 emissions, not because the science is settled, but precisely because it is not. Last penny I ever spent on that once proud magazine was that issue.
The logic train doesn’t hold up.
The stakes are NOT high. We have clear geological records showing that CO2 levels have been many times what they are today, and that temperatures have been higher, and the whole biosphere THRIVED as a result.
Matters are NOT urgent. CO2 is increasing at a paltry 2 ppm per year, and each additional ppm has LESS impact than the one before it. CO2 is logarithmic meaning it is subject to the law of diminishing returns.
The facts ARE certain. The FACTS are that returning to a pre-industrial society would sentence over 90% of the people on earth today to DEATH.
PNS is a sick and twisted way of distracting us from the real issues and turning decision making upside down and inside out and making it seem logical. It is moraly, ethicaly, and scientificaly bankrupt.

Jerome Ravetz;
Of course PNS is open to abuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you and the climate science community are doing exactly that.

vukcevic:Science advances not by the acquiescence, but by questioning every single assertion.

And in the case of many climsci people, science only advances one funeral at a time.

… “analyzes the impact of contrarian blogs on the climate change discourse”…
At least she didn’t use the term denier. A quick look at the LinkedIn link
posted above reveals little or no scientific background, yet a wealth of
“ed biz” and communications coursework/jobs.
This type of statement reminds me of when Carly Fiorina said
“perception IS reality”. A fan of Hegel, Fiorina is an expert at Hegelian
dialectic, which also appears to be what the “efforts to improve
communication of climate science” is really all about.
Since the AGW folks can’t get Hypothesis -> experiment -> validate/retry
to work, they’ve resorted to Thesis Antithesis –> Synthesis.
Trouble is, they’re synthesizing the “Kool-Aid” that we’ll be forced
to drink (and, as taxpayers, pay for as well).
Methinks with that background and those views, that Ms. Hollender
aims to feed her doctoral studies at the trough of AGW.
Would be great if Lord Monckton was there to show her a thing or
two about communication and climate science…

Given that most skeptics are not public figures, can we finally get our big money payoff via class action law suit against those who libel us, tossing in some RICO and hate crime language? That might actually shut them up though and send them back into hiding, ruining things, covertly. A naughty sense propels me to drop here a few Ayn Rand quotes rather relevant in tone to the real world fact that mainstream psychology is once again going crazy.
“The impulse of the habit of reason almost pushed her to speak, to argue, to demonstrate the self-evident – but she looked at their faces and she saw that they knew it. In some terms different from hers, in some inconceivable manner of consciousness, they knew all that she could tell them, it was useless to prove to them the irrational horror of their course and of its consequences….” – Ayn Rand (“Atlas Shrugged” 1957)
“She could not believe that she was supposed to feel respect for the dreary senselessness of the art shows which his friends attended, of the novels they read, of the political magazines they discussed – the art shows, where she saw the kind of drawings she had seen chalked on any pavement of her childhood’s slums – the novels, that purported to prove the futility of science, industry, civilization of love, using language that her father would not have used in his drunkenest moments – the magazines, that propounded cowardly generalities, less clear and more stale than the sermons for which she had condemned the preacher of the slum mission as a mealy-mouthed old fraud. She could not believe that these things were the culture she had so reverently looked up to and so eagerly waited to discover. She felt as if she had climbed a mountain toward a jagged shape that had looked like a castle and had found it to be the crumbling ruin of a gutted warehouse.” – Ayn Rand (“Atlas Shrugged” 1957)
“If a man makes an error in his choice of values, his emotional mechanism will not correct him: it has no will of its own. If a man’s values are such that he desires things which, in fact and in reality, lead to his destruction, his emotional mechanism will not save him, but will instead, urge him on toward destruction: he will have set it in reverse, against himself and against the facts of reality, against his own life. Man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer: man has the power to program it, but no power to change its nature – so that if he sets the wrong programming, he will not be able to escape the fact that the most self-destructive desires will have, for him, the emotional intensity and urgency of lifesaving actions. He has, of course, the power to change the programming – but only by changing his values.” – Ayn Rand (“The Virtue of Selfishness” 1961)
“There was a time when men were afraid that somebody would reveal some secret of theirs that was unknown to their fellows. Nowadays, they’re afraid that somebody will name what everybody knows. Have you practical people ever thought that that’s all it would take to blast your whole, big, complex structure…?” – Ayn Rand (“Atlas Shrugged” 1957)

Idiot social manipulator (NOT science) ….
wanting some small amount of relevance.
based purely on ignorance.

Leif Svalgaard: “Although English is not my mother tongue it is good enough to surmise that ‘yyy as xxx’ implies that ‘yyy is xxx’.”
Well, no. ‘Is’ is an identity statement while ‘as’ is a rather unfortunate collection of differing things that are not the same. In the manner used ‘as’ is to be read as ‘in the manner of’, ‘in the form of’, etc.
“I don’t think so. Agencies measure rainfall and draw maps of flood zones in order to enable policy decisions to be made, and I would not call that data collecting activity ‘ideology’. ”
And if science were strictly and only a data collecting activity then it would be engineering at most. But then we have to deal with theories and hypotheses. I submit that nothing would be lost if the ‘scientific method’ were redefined such that science is only and always a hypothesis non fingo affair. To disagree one has to first commit to the idea that theories are Truth and have primacy over experiment. But once that is done we have not said that science can be, in an ‘as’ sense, an ideology; but that it ‘is’ fundamentally ideological.
All that aside, I think it is without question that Climate Science is properly under the modern practice of science. And it is certainly without question that a large number of people take the canonical climate theories as a central point of their weltanschauung. Which is to say, they take it as ideological in the non-perjorative sense. And, of course, if they then try to leverage their political will in a democracy it becomes ideological in the perjorative sense as well. (Which is, honestly, a bit silly given that this is the entire point of democracies in the first place.)
I don’t perceive you as being such an individual that elevates Theory over experiment. But that makes little difference as to how the term is used today. Certainly, if we wished to be purists on definition, then Science is a word that doesn’t exist, we are speaking about ‘the Philosophical method’, and Philosophy is Rhetoric. But these notions are rather out of date by quite a few centuries.

Jo Postma: September 1, 2012 at 11.04 am: ‘Skepticism as post-normal science? Hey, I thought that was the label WE gave THEM and their denial of the scientific method!’
I don’t think these academics are arguing that scepticism per se is post-normal science, but rather that climate sceptic blogs (and also of course pro-AGW blogs) function as part of climate science, which is considered to be an instance of post-normal science,
Post-normal science is characterised by its proponents as: ‘the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken’, and where blogs act ‘as extended peer communities’.
To my mind, these characteristics apply well to climate science, in a way that, for example, the mating habits of monarch butterflies do not. I think it is very clear that values and worldviews, even ideologies, are deeply embedded in discussions of climate, from whichever angle.
Interestingly, most people on both sides of the climate debate seem to be pretty cool on the notion of post-normal science, possibly because there’s a rhetorical advantage in claiming that ‘they’ are infected by ideology, while ‘we’ are doing real science.

Darn, Here is the link to History of Science 157, Sociology of Science: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsdept/bios/docs/HS157_2009.pdf

Scientists should stick to science and let policy be decided at the ballot box. Bloggers give me and my fellow voters a greater opportunity to formulate good policy.
At the birth of my first child the doctor felt that a caesarian section was called for and sought my permission. I simply said, “give me the facts and i will give you a policy statement”.
Perhaps germane is this famous exchange, from the writings of Stanley L. Jaki, quote,
“Hence, the truth of Einstein’s remark to the Archbishop of Canterbury, that the science of relativity has nothing to do with moral betterment, which, let it be recalled, forms the gist of genuine religion. Einstein certainly offered something most momentous when he said in another context that he could not distill a drop of morality from his science”.

I just hope they don’t zero in on any of my comments.
Kudos to them, for picking a fight with the biggest dog in the pack.

University of Vienna: Karl Popper was an alumnus. He must be spinning in his grave.

Steven Mosher says:
September 1, 2012 at 4:27 pm
We are in a post normal situation. facts are uncertain, values are in conflict, stakes are high,…
You’ve led yourself up the garden path on account of your false premise.

Franziska, for Christ sake.
How dare you be so rude as to do a study on us without speaking to us?
We’re human beings. How would you feel if I did a doctorate on what I see as your peccadillos without even contacting you?
How dare you ask “what to do” with us, without asking us?
How dare your university allow you to indulge in this Orwellian drivel?

“post-normal science as a desirable goal”
Wow. The Edward Said-ian narrative cranks are now on the CS gravy train? But they are confused. The skeptics are NOT part of the post-normal something. Post-normal science is essentially a matter of increasing and maintaining funding in light of the scientific method being a barrier– to wit, when they realized everyone was starting to catch on to “postive feedbacks” blimey, they needed a new paradigm to ignore the uncertainties that could defeat further and continued funding.
“One approach to the problem is to extend the “peer” review to include all stake holders.
It’s not a marxist plot.”
Duh. It’s a fascistic one. “Stakeholders” is the new-nice term for the usual business and government parasites and their fellow travelers.
WARNING: When ever you hear the word “stakeholder,” it is some corporations or corporate front group posing as, or renting itself as, an ngo working in the “public interest.” “Stakeholder” equals “B.S.”

I would like to see a plot of exactly or even vaguely where things stopped being “normal,” before which things were “certain.”
When you form your argument around your desired conclusion, sometimes it’s pretty darned evident where you had to insert the “miracle step” that made the process coherent.

Jerome Ravetz says:
September 1, 2012 at 2:14 pm

“Also, in such circumstances there is no possibility of results approaching truth to the same degree that is possible in traditional science; hence the debate will be about the quality of results. This is inevitably complex, since all scientific results depend on arguments where imperfect data and imperfect inferences are combined. Experience has shown that in such cases, which include all areas closely connected with policy, the ‘extended peer community’ plays a very positive role, not merely in legitimating accepted results but also in criticising controversial results. “

A wonderful opportunity to get WWF material into the IPCC reports, or any other propaganda one has produced, and grab the power, n’est-ce pas? No objective reality, how very nice indeed; a perfect playground for the post-positivist manipulator.
Unfortunately, you’ve left logic behind and ignore that other field called probability theory that deals perfectly well with uncertainty – but that is not so easy to manipulate, n’est-ce pas?
There’s one rule that Alinsky failed to mention: You should make sense if you want to convince people. CO2AGW science doesn’t.

Maus says:
September 1, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Well, no. ‘Is’ is an identity statement while ‘as’ is a rather unfortunate collection of differing things that are not the same.
Splitting hairs wrongly. “that sunset is beautiful’ does not use ‘is’ as an identity statement, but simply meaning ‘having the quality of’. There is no doubt in my mind that ‘science as ideology’ was meant to imply that science is an ideology. I don’t grok what other meaning you would ascribe to it.
I submit that nothing would be lost if the ‘scientific method’ were redefined such that science is only and always a hypothesis non fingo affair. To disagree one has to first commit to the idea that theories are Truth and have primacy over experiment.
In fact, some theories belong in that category. Perhaps the best example is Dirac’s prediction of antimatter. In the theory there was a square root. The square roots of 4 are +2 and -2. So on the basis of the beauty of the theory, Dirac postulated that both solutions described physical reality, and sure enough, antimatter was later discovered experimentally. There are several other examples.

Science isn’t an ideology, but it is filled with Ideologists, on both sides of this particular sceintific issue.

Pending Doom!
http://www.horoscope.com/horoscope/resources/articles/pending-doom.aspx
The important thing to take away here is that these are all just theories, most of which are heavily disputed and have no real basis for happening. Like every day, stay safe and try not to worry.
Me

Paul Coppin says:
September 1, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Oh dear, another doctorate to recall.
She hasn’t got one yet; she’s a grad student.

Sagittarius Chinese/Scottish Counterparts: rat/clipe.

No, “stakeholder” means “profiteer”. There no BS about that. Stakeholders always have a vested interest somewhere, and they’re most definetly not shareholders…
Rather shortsighted. If I invest in a company, buy shares of their stock, I expect a return on my investment. What my return is depends on how well that company does. How does that make me not a “stakeholder?”
Do you honestly think that I would (willfully) put my money someplace where it does not guarantee its return, or at some level of risk, a greater return? I guess that make me an evil “profiteer.”
So be it.

Follow the Money says:
September 1, 2012 at 4:43 pm
…It’s not a marxist plot.”
Duh. It’s a fascistic one. “Stakeholders” is the new-nice term for the usual business and government parasites and their fellow travelers.
WARNING: When ever you hear the word “stakeholder,” it is some corporations or corporate front group posing as, or renting itself as, an ngo working in the “public interest.” “Stakeholder” equals “B.S.”
_____________________________
You are correct the word “Stakeholder” should set of loud alarm bells whenever you see or hear it. However there is a more ominous use of the word that livestock farmers figured out a long time ago. In all the dealings with farmers, we are referred to as “stakeholders.” Do you know what a “stakeholder” actually is?

…. The USDA, in their original documents regarding NAIS, refers to participants as “stakeholders” repeatedly, twenty one times in the Draft Strategic Plan alone. They also use the term “national herd” and tell us that NAIS is necessary to protect the health and marketability of the “national herd”. First let’s look at the PIN and then at animal identification with official NAIS compliant tags.
The USDA claims to “own” the PIN (page6 A User Guide) and when one is assigned a PIN either through truly volunteering for it or being rolled into it via other disease control programs, it stays with the property forever (Draft Program Standards pg 16-read the whole section on PIN) and the person who owns the property becomes a stakeholder.
The definition of stakeholder is as follows:
“The term stakeholder, as traditionally used in the English language in law and notably gambling, is a third party who temporarily holds money or property while its owner is still being determined.”
Yep. While it’s owner is still being determined. It doesn’t make me feel all warm and fuzzy. Now let’s look at the definition of ownership as a comparison. Wikipedia defines the term as follows:
“Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive possession or control of property, which may be an object, land/real estate, intellectual property or some other kind of property. It is embodied in an ownership right also referred to as title.”
So, if you have exclusive possession or control of the property in question, how can you be a stakeholder? Well, you can’t be. Either it’s your property, or it’s someone else’s property. With the NAIS, it’s not your property once you have a PIN making you a stakeholder and putting you under the jurisdiction of the Area Veterinarian In Charge or AVIC. (“A User Guide” is loaded with ‘consult your AVIC’ with any questions about anything.)
This brings about some very serious questions regarding not only livestock but also real estate. Since the USDA “owns” the Premise Identification Number (page 6 “A User Guide”) and the number can only be ‘inactivated’ and not expunged or completely annihilated, does it create an encumbrance on property with the PIN? Should that be part of the disclosure on the property? What happens if someone who doesn’t want to be in NAIS in any way buys property with a PIN?…
Doreen Hannes

The term Premise when applied to property also has some serious legal connotations. “The word premises is a synonym for the word tenement. A definition of the word tenement in law is: “Property, such as land, rents, or franchises, held by one person leasing it to another.
In Black’s Law Dictionary, premises, in the context of estates and property, means: lands and tenaments, buildings, an estate, the subject matter of a conveyance, land and appurtenances thereto.”
I mention this because a goal of Agenda 21 is to transfer effective ownership of land from individuals to the government.

The United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I) met in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the conference report was entitled simply “Land.” Here is an excerpt from the Preamble to that item:

“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”

This policy document was agreed to by the United States. Among the U.S. delegates were William K. Reilly, former EPA Administrator, and Carla Hill, former Trade Negotiator in the Bush Administration. Since the mid 1970s, both the United Nations and the United States have been moving toward ever-tightening “public” control of land use. Land Use Control

tallbloke wrote:

The guy who invented the term posted an essay on my blog:

Tallbloke, do not take anything this guy says at face value.

Jerome Ravetz: PNS, Truth and Science
I would not be at all surprised at the misunderstandings and harmful interpretations of PNS. That’s the price I pay for injecting my ideas into a debate.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/jerome-ravetz-pns-truth-and-science/

I think that sowing “misunderstandings and harmful interpretations” is exactly what Ravetz intends. He is a new New Left Marxist and disciple of Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse was the guru of the student protest movement in the late 1960s. These two articles are on the right track.

Post-Normal Claws, Teeth, and Slime
By Norman Rogers
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/post_normal_claws_teeth_and_slime.html
[…]
Post-Normal Science aims to change people’s consciousness so that they will accept politicized science.
Postmodernism: A Unified Theory of All the Trouble in the World
By M.J. Braun
May 2, 2010
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/postmodernism_a_unified_theory.html
[…]
That’s where post-normal science (PNS) comes in. According to the “inventors” of PNS, Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, it is supposedly a scientific method of inquiry appropriate for cases where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent.” What they describe however is more accurately recognized as politics than science, which is precisely the point: In postmodernism, everything is politics. And the aberration from “normal” science to post-normal science is designed for the purpose of manipulating and controlling high-stakes political artifice like “man-made global warming.” This is not about determining “truth,” which the advocates of post-normal science don’t believe in — it is about the power and control of politics.

This article (from the Egyptian weekly Al Ahram of all places) includes a good description of Marcuse’s legacy.

According to Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s current right-of- centre president, many of the country’s present ills, from the economic malaise to the crisis in the suburbs, can be laid at the door of the events of 1968.
“In this election,” Sarkozy told French electors during last year’s presidential elections, “what is at stake is the question of whether the heritage of May 1968 should be perpetuated or whether it should be got rid of once and for all.”
This heritage “has imposed a moral and intellectual relativism upon us,” he said, its inheritors having “imposed the idea that everything has the same value and that there is no difference between right and wrong, between true and false, or between what is ugly and what is beautiful.”
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/898/fe3.htm

If terms like “Post-modern” or “deconstructivist” leave you confused or you have difficulty finding a straightforward definition from those who use them most. Don’t be surprised. Confusion is the point. They are off-shoots of “Cultural Theory.” The New Left version of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth on steroids. You are supposed to re-assess everything you believe in; every aspect of your (dominant) culture. Heroes become villains. Certainty becomes doubt and suspicion.
What is the point of all this? -so that people come to despise their society enough to want to change it utterly i.e. revolution. “Smash the system” is so old fashioned. “Smash the culture” is the new mantra.
Marcuse realized the potential of the nascent environmental movement just before his death.

…authentic ecology flows into a militant struggle for a socialist politics which must attack the system at its roots, both in the process of production and in the mutilated consciousness of individuals…
Herbert Marcuse

On some other thread I challenged defenders of PNS to please illustrate the necessity for post-normal science historically, using a solid historical case study in which some catastrophic outcome was threatening portions of humanity (or nature, I suppose) if this new approach were not adopted. I’m not talking about high stakes for some scientist’s reputation, or the risks taken by individuals defending their intellectual stake – which are the kinds of example Jerome Ravetz has offered before, IIRC. I’d like to see some non-climate related science (and I mean science, not policy-decisions at the international protocol level) in which PNS resulted in fruitful outcomes.
It’s no wonder so many of us are confused by the definition of PNS, given the lack of concrete examples that offer any guidelines.

C.S. Peirce, no slouch in statistics, once defined the “normal” thus: “….the ‘normal’ is not the average (or any other kind of mean) of what actually occurs, but of what would, in the long run, occur under certain circumstances.” It seems to me that “post-normal” science is merely post-scientific science. The tautologous falsity of such a characterization is a performative instance of the object of description.

If you try and make an Ideology or Religion out of Science, you are doing it wrong. A screwdriver is not a car.

Smokey,
Thanks for the clarification! 🙂

See if you can get Trenberth to answer why he gave up on his Stratwarm studies, was it due to his paycheck getting cut off?
Also, see why we aren’t concerned about C02 and the mixing with other atmospheric constituents at 1000hPa, 500hPa, 200hPa right on up to 10hPa levels.
How do the atmospheric chemicals behave during shifts in PDO, AO, NAO, Indian Dipole and the Antarctic stream?
We set new records and our messiah may have stopped the seas from rising, but he know needs to address the real concerns (Note the number during loading):
http://earthquakes.tafoni.net/

Sociologists who can’t comprehend basic science, who want to applaud and cheerlead from the sidelines, appear to be disturbed by “rude” but accurate scientists, who correctly point out when “the king has no clothes.”
“Group think” is much more sociologically comforting and it’s easier for mindless cheerleading, than actually applying the Scientific Method. Ongoing skeptical evaluation is the very essence of the Scientific Method. We continue to review upgraded data, changing data, improved methods and additional research, into how things really work. All are vital when evaluating assumptions that have not been confirmed.
The mere assumption that prior claims have been confirmed is their first problem. A better seminar would cover that and some other issues, like how can so many millions of people be fooled by a small core of propagandists with enormous conflicts of interest? Why do people not know that the media narratives don’t address the underlying core problems with the CAGW hypothesis? And, why do so many people believe the media outlets, whose outrageous claims have continually been discredited, by scientists applying the scientific method?
But, traveling such paths toward reality, may be much more “uncomfortable” for sociologists, if they value group hugs and a quiet flock of followers, over actually getting the answers right.

Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow while others think it is science’s responsibility to fight them.
She is an advocate for POST-NORMAL SCIENCE — not an advocate for science. But here in this sentence, by a false substitution of terms, she claims for her side all the virtues of “science” — virtues which post-normal science totally lacks.. If this women were honest she would have written
Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow while others think it is POST-NORMAL SCIENCE’S responsibilty to fight them.
But that would make it only too clear that her side is anti-science.
Eugene WR Gallun

wobble says: “Franziska thinks that climate change discussions (discourse) have been stifled by skeptics wanting to discuss the science.”
Mann: How can I hide the Decline under Science’s scrutiny?
Gore: How can I pontificate with Science involved?
Hansen: How can I protest if Science is required?
UN/IPCC: How dare skeptics bring Science into our scam!

Sociologists want to get on the gravy train that is climate politics. Obviously analysing the whole climate science/government alliance would be a fascinating line of inquiry. Unfortunately it is doubtful there would be any funding for that. All that is left is attacking the skeptical bloggers. Whatever comes out should be good for a few laughs.

What do you suppose they mean by “post-normal science”? That paragraph reeks of academic-speak (I use “reeks” in its standard sense).
“… science as an ideology …”
The standard understanding of “ideology” (at least in the Left) is that it’s a “bad thing”. It’s always used in a pejorative sense. Unfortunately (for them) it just means “The body of beliefs that guides a person, institution, or group”. So then, I’m happy with my ideology that says that AGW is nonsense on stilts.

Finally it is concluded that the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis and that in order to advance the discourse there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicatated and enacted.
This is rather an amazing sentence. First some of the pieces need explanation.
SCIENCE AS AN IDEOLOGY — The reader may not recognize it but this is her definition of “post-normal science”. Switch out the the two phrases and the line becomes clear. THERE NEEDS TO BE A CHANGE IN HOW POST-NORMAL SCIENCE IS COMMUNICATATED AND ENACTED.
iN ORDER TO ADVANCE THE DISCOURSE — People fail to realize that a discourse is essentially a monologue — meaning the speech of one person. IT IS NOT A CONVERSATION WHICH INVOLVES TWO OR MORE PEOPLE. :You can’t have a discourse if you allow others to speak.
THE CLIMATE CHANGE DISCOURSE HAS BEEN STIFLED BY THE OBSESSION OF DISCUSSING THE SCIENCE BASIS — This is simply a recognition that they are losing the science battle — so instead we will get much scare mongering. We see this already in the new emphaisis on “extreme weather events”. How clearer can it be stated that Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever new term they come up with is no longer about science. IT IS ALL PROPAGANDA.
Taken as a whole the sentence says that “real science” is no longer useful to them in attaining their agenda. “Post-normal science” is to be totally disconnected from “real science”. Surprisingly “real science” had a place in “post-normal science” when “post normal science” was first conceived — it was to supply at least the appearance of an underpinning for their political agenda — but now the disconnect is to be total. From here on out they are just going to make it all up, shout and scream, intimiadate, bribe, etc.
What type of people would lap this crap up? Self-centered, greedy, power hungary people who totally believe in their own moral superiority. That pretty much describes a believer in “post-normal science” — or so think I.
Eugene WR Gallun

Futhermore avowals of distrust can be seen as linguistic performances of accountability, forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again.
This is girl thinks stringing big words together makes her look smart and that for fear of looking stupid no one will suggest that her words are so much turkey gobble. This is one of the most stupid lying sentences ever written by a human being. To break the code —
Avowals of distrust — Freedom of information requests for publicly owned data that should have been supplied when the scientists involved originally published — without which replication is impossible..
Linguistic performances of accountability — Linguistic is being used to mean “verbal not actual”. In other words she is saying that the claim that the information obtained by an FOI will be used to replicate the “science” is a lie. The FOI’s are only being filed to harass.the scientists who recieve them. The claim to want to replicate the “science” is only a “verbal performance”.
Forcing science to prove its reliabiltiy and integrity over and over again — What a lie! Those scienctist ignore the FOI’s or they send misleading information. Therefore they get sent another and then another. And its data paid for with public money and that should have been made public when the original papers using it were published. They don’t send the real data becasue they know their work can’t stand inspection.
Science — This is girl advocates “post-normal science” The scienctists who receive FOI’s are all doing post-normal science. The line should read — forcing POST-NORMAL SCIENCE to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again. Post-normal science has no reliability and is being done by people totally lacking in integrity.
And this girl actually thinks she is highly educated and deserves to have her education furthered by public monies?????? She will get it — and I bet they will give this bimbo a MacArthur Genius Grant also. She has the right politics. .
Eugene WR Gallun

pat says:
September 1, 2012 at 7:47 pm
has anyone posted the full program to take place from 13-15 sept, with a list of speakers/presenters almost as long as a telephone directory?
Culture, Politics, and Climate Change
AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER
SEPTEMBER 13-15, 2012
Please see page 24 for a list of CHPS speakers and session information.
http://www.climateculturepolitics.com/docs/CPCCONLINEProgramFinal.pdf
>>>Thanks for posting that, Pat – I was unaware of this, occurring right under my nose. It’s looking less like a Klan metting and more like a Woodstock of Ecobabblers. No way could I sit though three days of this rubbish, much less pay the price of admission. I’d learn more at a Grateful Dead concert for less money. The saddest thing is that there’s 200+ presenters, most of whom are paid by the taxpayer to invent justifications for policies that will raise the price of living and cost us even more.