Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. sends word of this via email. I’m a bit amused, but not surprised, as we know WUWT has been pushing the traditional media envelope, and we often tackle subjects they can’t or won’t. I liked this statement about skeptical blogs:
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.
She’s got that right. Just wait til she sees what is coming up next. – Anthony
CSTPR Noontime Seminar
Fall 2012 Series
Thursdays 12:00 – 1:00 PM
The Communications-Policy Nexus
Media, messages, and decision making
* Tuesday September 11, 2012
THE CONTRARIAN DISCOURSE IN THE BLOGOSPHERE: WHAT ARE BLOGS GOOD FOR ANYWAY?
by Franziska Hollender, Institute for Social Studies of Science, University of Vienna
CSTPR Conference Room, 1333 Grandview Avenue
Free and open to the public
The media serve to inform, entertain, educate and provide a basis for discussion among people. While traditional media such as print newspapers are facing a slow decline, they are being outpaced by new media that add new dimensions to public communication with interactivity being the most striking one. 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. Blogs, being fairly unrestricted and highly interactive, serve as an important platform for contrarian viewpoints, and they are increasingly permeating multiple media spheres.
Using the highly ranked blog ‘Watts up with that’ as a case study, discourse analysis of seven posts including almost 1600 user comments reveals that blogs are able to unveil components and purposes of the contrarian discourse that traditional media are not. 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. Furthermore, avowals of distrust can be seen as linguistic perfomances of accountability, forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again. 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.
========================================================
http://cires.colorado.edu/calendar/events/index.php?com=detail&eID=605
Can anyone go? Pielke Jr. reports he will be traveling.
Interesting, Discourse analysis something I’ve never heard of before which sent me on the obligatory wikipedia search; my oh my what a huge article! Me thinks that the article tries too hard to sound authoritative.
Of course when the second paragraph says:”
it sounds like something that would be right up the climate alarmist’s alley, undefined assumptions, methods of analysis and methodologies.
Steven Mosher says:
September 2, 2012 at 8:26 am
As I’ve said before science has no way of seeing into men’s hearts. We can speculate about motivations, but its ironic ,don’t you think ,to accuse the other side of PNS while practicing it yourself.
****
It’s not a question about science, it’s a question posed to you personally.
It’s very telling how you can drop the term ‘marxist plot’ on one hand and can reel behind the ‘inability to see into men’s heart’s’ on the other.
You are biased on the subject, but can’t bring yourself to admit it.
I’m not practicing PNS. I can admit tigers of all stripes exist on each side. You cannot.
i·de·ol·o·gy/ˌīdēˈäləjē/
Noun:
A system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political policy: “the ideology of republicanism”.
The ideas and manner of thinking of a group, social class, or individual: “a critique of bourgeois ideology”.
Interesting times.
I thing the real message here is that the pursuit of the science is getting in the way of the ideology.
Quick question (forgive me if it’s been covered already) – has the
insufferable Ms. Hollender asked permission to use (quote, whatever)
the seven blog posts and approximately 1600 comments, if only
out of courtesy?
I’m not advocating stifling exchange of information, only it seems
hypocritical on the part of “the Team” and their minions to freely
use skeptical material when they’re so stingy with theirs.
A look at the conference program shows no balance whatsoever,
only the usual agenda21 ngo/watermelon/nutcakes seeking to
brainwash the credulous public and intimidate everyone else.
And, of course, all of it from the point of view of “the science
is settled”.
IMHO, if it’s science, it’s not settled. (OK it might be
until it’s falsified, but in general….).
The links/info above from Gail Combs are really
eye-opening….we need to worry less about
post-normal/pre-normal/para-normal/abby-normal
and start looking at what we can do to counter all
this psycho-eco-babble and the resulting public
policies that will destroy our civilization as we know it.
Like the frog in the stewpot, we’re going to get
cooked if we don’t jump up and act soon.
Mmmm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science
… “post-normal science” is simply an extension of situations routinely faced by experts such as surgeons or senior engineers on unusual projects, where the decisions being made are of great importance but where not all the factors are necessarily knowable. Although their work is based on science, such individuals must always cope with uncertainties, and their mistakes can be costly or lethal.”
Mann/Manne/Hollender [i]et al[/i] are neither surgeons nor engineers.
From the description above it would seem that they claim to get credible results (that solve the planet’s climate problems) from models they themselves design with built in bias toward the results they want. All this with unknowable factors, yet based on science.
Reminds me of this type of science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Warmists sure know how to make a prophet (and a profit).
Youtube link should be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU
If anyone is going, the best question to ask (IMHO) is “Would you support, and lead an outreach to the hockey team, for a face-to-face, lengthy, actual scientific debate with leading skeptics?”
Laurie Bowen being Pollyanna:
You pose a good question at September 2, 2012 at 7:26 am when you ask
I wish your question were presented more often because it shows the state of climate science.
An experiment consists of using a conjecture, hypothesis or theory to predict an outcome.
Often an experiment is conducted by constructing a simplified system then adjusting a variable to observe if the adjustment produces the predicted change.
But some sciences cannot construct simplified systems. One such science is astronomy. In these sciences the prediction is made of how something will be observed. A classic example is Halley predicting when a comet would return. The experiment was not completed until long after his death when his prediction was observed to be correct.
Halley could not have conducted his experiment without an adequate theory of orbits. And formation of that theory created the science of astronomy. This theory was devised by the astrologer Copernicus who did not know he had created a new science: he only knew he had devised a new tool for use by astrologers. And his new science was based on his meticulous measurement of planetary movements through the sky.
Climate science is now at the same state of development as astronomy was before Copernicus. Little basic data has been obtained and that which does exist is over too short a time and lacks sufficient accuracy for construction of verifiable predictions of the future. We call the unjustifiable predictions of Copernicus and his colleagues who studied the sky ‘astrology;. The unjustifiable predictions of the future made on the basis of existing understandings of climate behaviour are similar to the predictions of astrologers, and they are often given as much credence as astrological predictions were in the time of Copernicus.
This is not to say that existing understandings of climate cannot be tested by experiment: they can.
An example of an experiment in existing climate science is the prediction of the tropospheric ‘hotspot’ as a result of increased atmospheric GHG concentrations. The ‘hotspot’ is warming at altitude a factor of 2 to 3 times greater than at the surface in the tropics. But the ‘hotspot’ is not observed and this indicates the understanding(s) which predict the ‘hotspot’ are wrong.
Many scientific predictions are of things which conjecture, hypothesis or theory says exist but have not been found; e.g. several elements in the Periodic Table were predicted to exist before they were found. A finding that such a prediction is correct is an experiment.
As Halley knew, not all experiments can be conducted on a laboratory bench or can be completed in minutes.
Climate science needs a Copernicus.
Richard
PNS at Work
The Challenger Disaster
The opinions of the scientists and engineers who had designed the o-rings was that there was a substantial risk of failure in a cold weather launch. They were over ruled by a larger group of NON scientists. People died.
The launch deadline was approaching (matters urgent) the stakes were high (there was political pressure to not miss the launch window) and the facts were uncertain (the engineers could not prove that the seals WOULD fail as no testing at those temperatures had been done).
Enter PNS. The opinions of a larger spectrum of decision makers were sought, and the opinion of NON scientists was substituted for that of the people who had actually designed the oNor w-rings in the first place.
People died.
That is PNS in action. For starters, there never was any urgency. The urgency only existed in the minds of beauracrats who wanted to launch within a time frame that served political goals. There was no REAL urgency. Were the stakes high? For the people that died they were. Were the facts uncertain? No they were not. The facts were that testing had NOT been done at the launch temperatures in question, the design had NOT anticipated those temperatures, and there was every reason to believe that there was a very high risk as a consequence.
By analogy to the climate debate: There is no urgency. There is no scientific evidence that I have seen presented showing that something catastrophic is about to happen in the next few years, decades, or even centuries. The stakes are not high. We have ample evidence to show that much higher concentrations of CO2 (thousands of ppm versus our current hundreds) and much higher temperatures (jungles in the high temperate zones) have existed in the past, and the biosphere thrived as a result. Facts are, actually, certain. If we return to a pre-industrial society now, billions of people will starve to death.
This is the true face of PNS. It is a method to create a SENSE of urgency where none exists to JUSTIFY the substitution of the opinions of NON scientists for the opinion of ACTUAL scientists and to disguise the FACTS such that we take action on something that MIGHT happen in the face of the much greater negative consequences of what WILL happen if we take those actions.
That is NOT what people at WUWT in my experience are doing as part of their discussions.
Is “Post Normal Science” the same science that told us tobacco use did not cause cancer?
Post Normal Science (PNS) is not science. It is simply a political proposal for a widespread socialist based control mechanism in lieu the non-socialist (non-totalitarian) pursuit of free/ voluntary/ individualistic approaches to the scientific process. The attempts at justifications for PNS are the same old (greater than 100 year old) tired socialist attempts to justify any advance of socialist control of any human freedom.
PNS intellectuals are just opportunistically supporting the pre-existing CAGW advocate’s call for political totalitarianism. When CAGW agendas collapse, PNS intellectuals will grab on to the next pseudo science doomsday agenda to justify initiating PNS controls.
Since PNS intellectuals are using all the acumultated rhetoric of past socialist advocates, there really is nothing new in their arguments.
We again have the eternal argument of totalitarianist action versus voluntary actions based on individual freedom. There continues to be the need to remain vigilant wrt to this eternal argument.
The convoluted and obscure writing of Ravetz is a a poor mask for blatant socialist advocacy.
John
What is post normal science? The attempt to promote a socio political agenda using a perversion of science to give that socio political agenda a validity it would not otherwise have. ‘The debate is over’ and if you disagree with the majority you are ‘denier’ and a ‘heretic’. Post normal science does not tolerate dissent because to do so would render the consensus invalid and weaken the case for urgency.
Re: Mosher post: “10 years from now when its warmer, so people will still deny it. same way they deny that there is less ice this year than last year. Science as a method cannot deal with people who refuse to accept the facts.”
Mr. Mosher, 10 years from now is no fact but speculation and the way this temperature is supposed to be measured is in fact disputed.
Nobody denies summer Arctic sea ice extent is smaller than last year. Indeed this measurement is a fact. However, what is debatable and debated is the climatological meaning of this fact. In their paper Kinnard et al. 2011 claimed that Arctic sea ice extend has not been that small for 1450 y a claim that can be argued. However in their demonstration they also showed that the extent of Arctic sea ice shrinked during the LIA, hardly a warming period…
The finding that Arctic sea ice extent and/or area was shrinking during this global episode of cooling such as the LIA confirms evidence from research on the last glaciation. It was shown that during the onset of glaciation, a period of relative warmer conditions affected the Svalbard islands before glacial conditions finally were established. Leroux easily explained that relief channelized warm air advection increased as a consequence of colder, higher pressure more powerful air masses descending from the Arctic, displacing more warm air at its periphery.
BTW, during the Dust Bowl 1930s during which atmospheric circulation was in an accelerated mode, DMI nautical charts showed a similar -because of the atmospheric dynamic involved- pattern of summer Arctic sea ice reduction, even accounting for the uncertainty of mapping.
Since the climatic shift of the 1970s, well expressed by pressure measurements around the globe -way more robust than temperature- we have also entered a phase of rapid mode of circulation, hence increased remobilization of the pack seen in satellite animations. I wish also to add that “multiyear ice” is referring to 7 y and older ice. If the claimed stability was indeed a feature, how come we cannot map 100 y, 50y old sea ice? The intensity of atmospheric circulation explains the periods of quiescence and periods of mobilization of the pack. It also explains the shape a melting pack takes during a mobilization period. And these periods do not correspond to warming phases but on the contrary to cooling phases and increased gradient between polar and equatorial regions. And please do not quote the temperature reanalysis at the 500hPa level as proof of the opposite since it has been well demonstrated that cold air masses are lenticular shaped and their thickness is 1.5km, which is well below the 500 hPa level. In fact this is the “trick” of all these studies…
So before attributing one factual consequence to one cause, one needs to look beyond thermometers and temperatures series: your comment participated in PNS while I informed you how the real scientific method allowed us to put that fact in context.
Steven Mosher says:
That is Post normal science.. as a DESCRIPTION of the situation that scientists find themselves in.
No. PNS is not the situation. PNS is a Marxist’s proposed method of exploiting the situation. Put another way: PNS is the Marxist plot, and the situtation is the excuse. One of the ways to get people to adopt the plot, is to equivocate on the term PNS – as you are doing now.
Post normal science as a PRACTICE is not very well defined.
Really? Funcowitz and Ravetz have written several papers and books on the subject. Those hundreds and hundreds of pages don’t define the practice very well? Not very charitable commentary on Jerry’s last chance at achieving relevance.
Perhaps the problem is not that they didn’t write it well, but that you didn’t read it well. You appear to have only read two of those hundreds and hundreds of pages: the one that describes the situation to exploit, and the one that mentions ‘extended peer review’. There is so much more! Above, Jerry uses the NewSpeak ‘extended peer community’, but he also mentions his replacement for facts: ‘extended facts’. He also hints at his replacement for scientific reasoning: ‘quality’. And don’t think for a moment that ‘expressions of value commitments’ is in there without reason.
The question is really how do you get back to a normal situation…
Well, that certainly is not a question with which PNS concerns itself. PNS is an implementation of “never let a good (imaginary) crisis go to waste”. PNS is about getting people to accept politicized science, not drawing them away from it.
10 years from now when its warmer, …
You have powerful faith commitments.
… so people will still deny it.
One might have said in 1998: 15 years from now when it is not warmer, some people will still claim warming. You may be correct in 10 years time. That person would be correct right now.
Science as a method cannot deal with people who refuse to accept the facts.
Science as a method is not intended to “deal with people”.
Telling that you would say such a thing. You seem to be laboring under the same misconception as the woman who put together the seminar that is the subject of this posting: that science is an ideology, and that science can be ‘enacted’. No, that is not science. That is PNS.
“Dealing with people” is the realm of politics. Ideology is politics. PNS is politics. None of these things is science, and it is bad politics that they attempt to masquerade as such.
I am extremely suspicious of the thrust of the presenter. It seems from the abstract that she might be in favour of post-normal science and has some notion of “science as ideology”. – and uses the word “linguistics”. It may be an effort to attack Anthony Watts, because he is a high-profile climate blogger who has exposed major errors in the surface temperature databases of US government and academia).
She is a graduate student in Vienna, http://www.linkedin.com/pub/franziska-hollender/6/914/8b3, thesis is “Communicating Climate Change: Understanding the contrarian discourse in new media arenas in the United States”.Basic degree is in “Communication and Cultural management”. Has a past connection to CIRES.
There’s at least one skeptic at the hosting institution: http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4419.
Mike D in AB says:
September 2, 2012 at 8:06 am
Tallbloke@6:46 Thanks for the further explanation. Even with things being post (normal science), I would prefer that the precepts of scientific inquiry still be followed. Particularly relating to falsification. When what can be seen as malfeasance, selective sampling and use of data, or simple human error is the basis for the “normal science”, I don’t want it used as a launchboard for extrapolation into the post normal realm!
Hi Mike. Ravetz wouldn’t disagree. Which is why he stresses integrity and quality in the essay I linked. After communicating with me over a period of months, he realized that the normal science hadn’t been done properly in the case of climate science. Which is why one of the major themes at the Lisbon conference was the definition and agreement of standards to be adhered to in the production of datasets and their metadata.
He made a further effort to clarify what he meant by ‘quality’ on my blog here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/jerome-ravetz-quality-in-science/
Quality isn’t a replacement for adhering to the scientific method. It is what assures it.
Re: Joe Postma @11:04 on 09/01
I have not heard someone say or use the word simulacra in 15 years, maybe Allan Bloom in one of his books. Well used, and applicable to much of the establishment’s methods to impose it’s ideology, and apprently pretty effective.
richardscourtney says:
September 2, 2012 at 9:51 am
Climate science needs a Copernicus.
>>>Climate science has dozens of “Copernici”. They’re all over the place at Heartland climate conferences, on WUWT, Icecap, Climate Audit……
However, like Copernicus, they’ve been excommunicated from the taxpayer funded church of Climate Sciencism.
@ur momisugly Stephanie Clague commented
Not, only that Stephanie, if “hue”mans are in “control” or can “control” this the next big wars will be rain wars, (“they” stole our rain). “They” caused the plate techtonic movements . . . “They” shifted the orbit of the planet!
The USA already paid Canada for the Acid Rain issue . . .
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1Q5VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MT0NAAAAIBAJ&pg=1295,3554989&dq=usa+payment+to+canada+for+sulfur+dioxide+acid+rain&hl=en
Turns out that Mt St. Helen did most of the polluting!
Just a continuation of the same strategies . . . Same game . . new playbook.
Not, saying we can not engineer more efficient, (cleaner burning) energy methods that are cost effective, as the innovations available.
Hue-mans have to be able to make a living, but, it it not an imperative for them to make “a killing” which is the nature of a unfettered capitalistic system which is one crux of the entire debate.
In my opinion, of course.
Turns out that Mt St. Helen did most of the polluting!
Just a continuation of the same strategies . . . Same game . . new playbook. In my opinion, of course.
tallbloke:
In response to my having said at September 2, 2012 at 5:46 am
At September 2, 2012 at 6:03 am you said
Subsequently, at September 2, 2012 at 8:40 am you wrote to Steven Mosher saying:
Clearly, on the basis of your response to me, you think it does.
Me, I know PNS stands for Political Nullification of Science: i.e. a corruption of science.
Richard
Yes, I did copy the above post from an email to objective people in the Boulder CO area who might be able to attend. 🙂
Look at http://c21.phas.ubc.ca/article/true-false-or-not-sure-philosophy-science-21st-century for the flavour of post-normal science, with a reference to the source of the notion.
My take is that it substitutes emotions for facts.
Pollyanna says: September 2, 2012 at 7:26 am
Please edify me on how you would “experiment” with climate
I suppose you could fill a bottle with CO2 and expose it to sunshine, add a bit of water to play role of Pacific, but that isn’t climate is it.
I would suggest looking into past records, find a possible pattern and take a speculative leap suggesting that it may repeat in the future.
That is exactly what I have done, taken 2-3 components out of the CET temperature records reassembled them and extrapolated forward.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
but even if turns out to be reasonable approximation for the central England, may not tell us much about North America or even less about Australia. Regardless, it was a bit disappointing to find out that Margate is not going to turn into Marbella.
Perhaps there is someone else who is better at the climate edifying skills.
Richard Keen:
re. your point addressed to me at September 2, 2012 at 11:13 am
Yes, I agree.
Richard
“the climate change discourse has been stifled by the obsession of discussing the science basis”.
Indeed it must be unsettling when the whole basis for your cosy sociological chats is being costantly undermined by testing and retesting for observable evidence.
Enough to make you spill your coffee.
Unfortunately that’s real Science. Every premise is constantly open to review & up for either improvement or disproval, because real knowledge relies on the reality of the premises it is founded upon.
Whereas in the ‘Sciency’ Sciences a premise is just an excuse for a good natter, and requires no basis in objective reality.
I stand with Codetech on this idiocy, Post normal science is hallucination , if the real world does not support your belief systems its now credible in academia to retreat from reality. Using this PNS tag as justification, I can prove anything I want, but of course it will fail verification.
The old, Fools names & fools faces are always found in public faces, refrain keeps coming to me each time I read self serving circular reasoning pretending to be science or even reason.