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.
Tallbloke @10:53 Good! That is the sort of thing I had been hoping to hear when I had asked for further discussion above. And “Who will guard the guardians” was one of the first things that had entered my mind before my first post on the thread. Thanks for the follow-up.
Mike D in AB says:
September 2, 2012 at 12:13 pm
“Who will guard the guardians”
In ordinary science it is essential that there are no guardians.
Leif @12:20 – not so. All involved in proper peer review act as guardians, do they not? They should not guard a particular theory or viewpoint, but the integrity of themselves and the field. This is why inquiries post Climategate that have been referred to as “whitewashes” have been so damaging to the layman’s view of science as a whole (IMO).
Jerome Ravitz;
It has been 22 hours and counting since you posted your definition of PNS in this thread. Since then, I have seen not a single response from you to the many criticisms levelled against both PNS in general and yourself in particular. I would like to add one more challenge to your assertion to show the complete bankruptcy of your position. You definition of PNS from your comment above reads:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jerome Ravetz says:
September 1, 2012 at 2:14 pm
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I submit to you that not only is your premise wrong, it is impossible.
Consider a thought experiment involving a situation that is ACTUALLY high stakes, urgent, facts uncertain. Suppose that an asteroid is discovered to be hurtling toward earth. It is large enough to be termed a “planet killer” though nobody is 100% how large it must be to actually kill the planet. It isn’t even 100% certain that it will collide with the planet. Impact is estimated to be within 18 to 24 hours.
Pretend you are the president of the United States. What do you do Jerome Ravetz? The fate of the world rests upon you. The stakes are high. Everyone on earth might die. The matter is urgent. You’ve got to choose a course of action in enough time to be effective, meaning that you have perhaps two or three hours at most to make a decision and hope that all the things that have to come together to make the solution effective do.
What do you do Jerome Ravetz? There can be no higher stakes than this. What do you do? Do you consult with the specific resources you have available that can bring launch capability (NASA) and the biggest baddest bombs ever built (the military), pick an action plan and order it to be carried out? Or do you expand the decision making beyond “a closed set of practitioners”? Do you order NASA to grab a 160 Megaton bomb from the arsenal and tell them to blow that sucker to smithereens? Or do you start a blog and solicit recommendations from beyond a “closed set of practitioners”? Do you contact the people whose job and resources make them the best expertise you have available in the next 2 to 3 hours? Or do you set up a hotline to take phone calls from people who might have good ideas?
This demonstrates the complete irrationality of Jerome Ravitz position, and the complete hollowness of the PNS concept. When confronted with an ACTUAL emergency, where the stakes are ACTUALLY high, and the need to act ACTUALLY urgent, it becomes painfully obvious that the opportunity to expand the decision making process beyond a “closed set of practitioners” is not only not science, it is IMPOSSIBLE.
I challenge you Jerome Ravitz, to propose a single situation which be definition is high stakes and urgent and could be solved by going outside of a “closed set of practitioners” to arrive at a solution. The fact of the matter is Dr Ravetz, that any situation that meets your own definition of high stakes and urgency CANNOT POSSIBLY be solved by anything BUT a closed set of practitioners with immediate access to the means with which to implement their solution.
The ONLY debate that can be expanded beyond a “closed set of practitioners” with any value is one that does NOT meet your own criteria for high stakes and urgency! Your theory is bereft of logic and no value in the climate debate or any other debate for the simple reason that it falsifies itself.
Richard Courtney: ‘It is because politicians have power (i.e. money) and can use it on scientists but scientists have no power to operate on politicians.’
Politicians have the power of the purse in many areas of public life. That’s one of the reasons we elect them.
And since climate science is an issue of potentially large impact on the public, politicians need to be involved at some point in the game.
The important issues here are accountability and transparency, and making clear the respective rights and responsibilities of all parties. I think that can be achieved through a properly functioning democratic system.
I have no great issue with post normal science myself. From my very basic understanding of it we haven’t come close to putting the theory into practice.
The scientific consensus on AGW is a tiny number of people. From them it has spread out with what you might call converts or believers, and those best placed to exploit the hypothesis for their own gain, rather than those additional and wider views shaping the consensus to any great degree. If they can’t compromise amongst themselves and allow their consensus to develop they certainly won’t compromise with those who are sceptical of the evidence and sceptical of the proposed solutions.
With AGW the IPCC and governments have tried to sell us a finished product rather than involve us in the development of it. PNS requires the latter. Instead we have had a distinct lack of transparency from scientists, a compliant media that happily overlooks the financial interests scientists and states have in AGW and a good deal of gate keeping by politicians on what particular goals are to be aimed for, what specific solutions are to be allowed and who gets to speak on these matters.
Mike D in AB says:
September 2, 2012 at 12:36 pm
All involved in proper peer review act as guardians, do they not?
Actually, they are not supposed to. They are concerned with whether a paper fulfills a certain level of quality as to its execution [sound data, proper analysis, proper references to prior work, etc], but not whether the paper adheres to accepted dogma that needs guarding. That peer review at times is corrupted is another matter.
TL:DR version of PNS: Science isn’t giving us what we want, so we’re going to try to change science so it does give us what we want.
” Science as an ideology” WUWT! Ideological science can only be ideology dressed as science. To me, that quote says it all. AGW is indeed a religion.
PNS is nothing but pseudo-science. It is a bunch of malarky that Ravetz is coasting on because his position at the public trough gives him a platform to spout his anti-science nonsense.
And the reason for this seminar is because WUWT is having a big effect on the discourse of the AGW conjecture. I think most knowledgeable people question the belief that AGW is something to worry about. All available evidence shows that there has been no ill effect from a *very* mild, 0.8ºC rise in global temperature over about 150 years. Prior to that, global temperatures have changed by tens of degrees in only decades, when CO2 was very low. That is strong evidence that CO2 is, at most, a very minor driver of temperature – so minor, in fact, that its effect is unmeasurable.
The current natural warming follows the Little Ice Age – one of the coldest episodes of the past 10,000 years. The real [and unstated] ‘problem’ of the Boulderites is the threat of derailing their financial gravy train. That is the only thing they really care about.
I would like to attend the seminar, but I suspect the censors will be out in force, and the only ones allowed a voice will be those in the CAGW unreality bubble. It will be the ultimate echo chamber, where no true skeptic voices will be tolerated. But maybe someone can attend, and bring along their cameras to record the event for posting here.
Brendan H:
At September 2, 2012 at 12:48 pm you say to me
YES! Absolutely, and that is precisely why PNS needs to be opposed.
Please see my post above addressed to Stephen Mosher at September 1, 2012 at 4:49 pm.
It is good to end on agreement.
Richard
By blocking “discourse” I think she means blocking their political agenda. Her communications skills are poor and her thinking is convoluted, reflecting both ignorance and cognitive bias. She is a very sad example of the declining standards in academia.
One other interesting thought here on “Science” versus “Engineering”… I highly recommend http://www.brainsinsilicon.stanford.edu —May I be so bold as to point out that here is an example of taking “observable systems of nature” (i.e., neural networks and human brains) and completely modeling/duplicating via ENGINEERING. (Anyone realize the analogy here between WATCHING the atmosphere and trying to accurately model it?)
NONE of the work done by the B.I.S. group goes without bouncing against the “real” systems.
In fact that is the REASON for their existence.
An interesting comparison between “science” (said holding your nose in the air, and a little finger out while tasting your tea..) and “engineering” and development. As far as I’m concerned the “scienctists” can all dissapear tomorrow…and as people read about it on their iPhones they’d say, “Daddy? What’s a SCIENTIST?” And the answer would be, “Like a land line child, something ancient and useless.”
Leif:
Correct, and that is exactly what Ravetz says in the piece on ‘quality’ he asked me to publish. “There are no go-no-gauges at the end of the science production line” “It has to be self policing”
Personal integrity comes under pressure when an individual succumbs to the prospect of money and fame. The AGW scientists were seduced by the catapulting of their backwater disciplineinto the big time media limelight and let themselves, and us, down very badly.
Sociology is a peculiar game. Sociological study begins with the conclusions which are fixed at the outset of study. These are specified for their political correctness (sociology uses politics as an axiomatic system). The goal of sociology is then to construct arguments which explain the correctness of these politically correct conclusions.
In the case of climate skepticism the conclusion is that climate skeptics have false beliefs. This is axiomatic – selected on political grounds. It WILL NOT be questioned (anyone who ever questions a politically correct conclusion even accidentally has their license to practice sociology instantly revoked). The sociologists see their goal purely as one of explaining WHY skeptics have false beliefs.
The first attempt was to argue that skeptics are scientifically ignorant. The argument goes that skeptics believe wrongly because they don’t know any better. However surveys showed that climate skeptics are actually quite well informed – much better informed than the average population on scientific matters. So that argument didn’t fly.
That lead to the argument that if skeptics are not ignorant then they must be insane. This explanation has the virtues of being nice and simple. The communists in particular are quite taken with it. However the idea that scientific error should be treated as a psychiatric condition has less appeal to non-communists, reminding us uncomfortably as it does of the forced psychiatric treatment of dissenting scientists in the Soviet Union. Many non-communist sociologists have therefore rejected this explanation as being politically incorrect.
The next suggestion (and the one under current intensive study in the small world of sociology) is that our error arises from a kind of pathology of communication which poisons the way that scientific results are communicated to the public. In other words we are not insane, we are merely deceived and deluded, misled by shadowy dark forces promulgating a highly effective propaganda campaign who have sold us on a pack of lies. By the way that is probably why they are interested in WUWT. Under this theory WUWT would be responsible for doing the deluding.
Of course WUWT is nothing of the sort. Maybe they’ll notice. These guys CAN take note of reality … sometimes … so long as it doesn’t conflict with any important political consideration.
Finally, if you are unlucky enough to run into an infestation of sociologists there are some important things to remember. Never ever try to argue with them. If you don’t know the special sociologist jargon and secret handshake they won’t listen to a word you say anyway. In particular you will get absolutely nowhere by trying to dispute their chosen politically correct conclusion. In fact they’ll laugh at you for trying to argue about axioms. Also try not to scratch too much as the bites can easily get infected. Treat your pets and vacuum regularly to try to get rid of the eggs. Severe infestations may require the services of an exterminator.
New:
Decadal-extent cross-ENSO annual-LOD by day of year:
http://i50.tinypic.com/11he49z.png
–
Overview:
1 coin
2 sides
A) J-N 12.8 year — annual LOD / wobble (polar motion)
http://i46.tinypic.com/2zyac20.png
http://i50.tinypic.com/11he49z.png
B) J+N 11.07 year — semi-annual LOD / sun
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image10.png
http://i49.tinypic.com/2jg5tvr.png
Robust across methods.
(supplementary: http://i45.tinypic.com/bfxn4.png (total ozone))
richardscourtney says:
September 2, 2012 at 11:17 am
tallbloke:
I find it hard to fathom what, if anything, you think should be done to defend science from political interference. Maybe your position is to avoid confronting the issue and stay ‘unsullied’ as a journal editor. Fair enough, I can see that works for you. I don’t see that it puts you in a strong position to pass judgement on the efforts of others though.
So what do you think should be done to prevent the political interference in science Richard?
It seems that you think it is ok for them to interfere in science so long as they were elected.
You should realise that it doesn’t matter who you vote for, interfering politicians always get into government.
They’ve got the best science money can by as well as the best electioneering assistants.
Smokey says:
September 2, 2012 at 1:17 pm
PNS is nothing but pseudo-science. It is a bunch of malarky that Ravetz is coasting on because his position at the public trough gives him a platform to spout his anti-science nonsense.
Back in the 70’s Ravetz was sitting on committees which were trying to decide what the limits on embryo research and genetic engineering would be. Various scientists being well paid by various interests offered conflicting views. Plus the church had a thing or two to say about it all, and they represent big constituencies the politicos can’t ignore.
Some of his thinking about what you do with the products of scientific expertise at the policy interface where other groups have valid interests in having a say came from these turbulent meetings. How can science and non-science (but still valid) interests be assessed and weighed in the balance. Richard thinks we should just let the politicians get on with it, but in fact, they are pretty poorly equipped to deal with the issues.
So Ravetz offered some thoughts on how to formalise the melee of uncertainty, quantify it, and come up with rational decisions. However, he fully recognised that in the end, the decision taken by the elected politicians wouldn’t be wholly based on rational considerations, because reason and faith and strategy are human constructs which all demand a say in matters.
If the people here who think Ravetz is the spawn of the devil stop to consider the gravity and difficulty of the issues he has tried to grapple with, they might realise that facile and adamant positions can look like breast beating and intolerantly dogmatic postures to others.
In the specific case of the climate change issue, I personally am with the people who say “what urgency?”, but then, we come down with a judgement about issues for which no crucial experiment has yet been devised to decide the issue.
tallbloke says:
So what do you think should be done to prevent the political interference in science Richard?
Step one: call it out when you see it.
To wit: PNS is not science, it is political interference in science.
If you can figure out how to keep the meddling hands of PNS off of science, you’ll have a step up on keeping other political interference out of science.
When do you start?
JJ says:
September 2, 2012 at 3:32 pm
tallbloke says:
So what do you think should be done to prevent the political interference in science Richard?
Step one: call it out when you see it.
To wit: PNS is not science, it is political interference in science.
Well of course JJ, when we insist on auditing science it’s a good thing, but when Ravetz does it he’s just sticking his PNS in where it’s not wanted.
tallbloke;
when we insist on auditing science it’s a good thing, but when Ravetz does it he’s just sticking his PNS in where it’s not wanted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Bull. He’s sticking a false premise and disguising it as having value. The example you gave of his work on stem cell research does NOT fit his definition of PNS! There was nothing URGENT about those decisions! There was not catastrophic event in the offing that would be prevented or enabled by the decisions being made in that example. His own definition requires that the matter be urgent. It wasn’t.
And since he won’t answer me, if you wish to defend him, then by all means. Answer my previous charge. If the matter is URGENT then limited time to make decisions requires that those decisions be made by those who have both the means and the knowledge. If there is TIME to consult outside of that group, then by DEFINITION the matter was NOT urgent. His utter garbage fails on his own definition!
@ur momisugly PV
Thanks, posted.
davidmhoffer says:
September 2, 2012 at 4:15 pm
The example you gave of his work on stem cell research does NOT fit his definition of PNS! There was nothing URGENT about those decisions!
In the absence of clear directives, biotech companies simply go ahead. It was urgent that international agreements were reached ASAP.
Before I answer to the rest of your post, I’d like you to answer the question I put to you 24 hours ago:
tallbloke says:
September 1, 2012 at 4:34 pm
davidmhoffer says:
September 1, 2012 at 3:17 pm
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.
He does? This is news to me. Got a link to that? Maybe you got him mixed up with Schneider.
Depending on the outcome of that request, I’ll decide whether or not I feel like taking the punches.
tallbloke;
He does? This is news to me. Got a link to that? Maybe you got him mixed up with Schneider.
Depending on the outcome of that request, I’ll decide whether or not I feel like taking the punches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It matters not in the least if I got him mixed up with Schneider or not. His PNS premise fails on its own definition. Including the example you gave in your last comment which was:
“In the absence of clear directives, biotech companies simply go ahead. It was urgent that international agreements were reached ASAP.”
Why, exactly, was it “urgent”? Was there some worldwide catastrophe that would have resulted had decisions been put off for a year or two or five? What impending disaster was averted? There was none.
When John F Kennedy was facing the Soviet navy only minutes from intercepting the American naval blockade of Cuba, with Cuban missiles within hours of becoming operational, with his finger on the button that would destroy much of humanity, did he have TIME to consult with anyone outside his military and immediate advisors?
When the leadership of Japan realised that just two bombs had utterly destroyed two major cities, did they have TIME to do a public survey to surrender or not?
When Apollo (15? 16?) had sensor trouble, and the engineers at Spar Aerospace had only a few hours to determine if the sensors had failed and were giving false readings that could be safely ignored, did they have the TIME to consult outside of their own subject matter expertise?
When Apollo (13?) had failed CO2 scrubbers, did they have TIME to put out an RFP for a solution? Or did they come up with a fix based on the expertise that they had on hand right then and there?
Shall I go on? The insertion of the word “urgent” makes a mockery of the premise. If it is actually urgent, then the TIME to seek the counsel of a broader skill set does not exist. If non technical decision makers are so arrogant to, at that point, substitute their judgment for that of technical decision makers, then the result is the tragedy we call the Challenger Disaster.