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.
Post-normal: start with your conclusion and trim all reason and evidence achieve it. The author’s method exactly:
Wait, are those the only logical possibilities? YES, if your logic is being trimmed to in post-normal fashion.
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.
It certainly makes it clear that we are talking about two different definitions of “Science.”
I even found them.
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.
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!
(In fact, I used to live about five blocks from where the event will be held.)
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!
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win”.
Gandhi knew what he was talking about, even if it was not about Post-Normal Science. We seem to be about in stage 2. Post-Normal Science is fraud.
I plan to attend this seminar. Will report here as I did on the NOAA seminar previously. “Science as ideology.” Indeed.
Bill Hunter says:
September 1, 2012 at 1:30 pm
She touches upon blogs as an impediment to enacting science. Policy is the product of ideology and thus the role of science is to also inform policy.
===============================================================
Kind of sounds like “lobbyist”. Leave out the bribes and greed aspect, and a “lobbyist” value in politics is to inform the law maker of the impact and implications of whatever is being considered. (For example, how many ex-lawers understand an energy grid?) Part of the problem is that through grants etc. the lawmakers have become the bribers, “bad” lobbyist. “Here’s some cash. Now tell them they need to support (and pay for) what I want to do.”
There was a gap in the link below, which I’ve eliminated:
This gal’s statements, which seem so off-track, may not be as bad as they sound. STS (Science and Technology Studies), which is her field, speaks in a special lingo / jargon. She may have deliberately avoided sounding like a contrarian herself in order not to put off potential attendees. We’ll know soon.
There are blogs where science can be questioned (WUWT) and blogs where it definitely can not (ReaalClimate). We are all familiar about WUWT attitude, statements from academic to amateur blogers are questioned and tested.
I gave a test to RC few hours ago.
Tread title :
Climate indices to watch
vukcevic says:
1 Sep 2012 at 1:20 PM
We shouldn’t forget the North Atlantic SST (the AMO) which is often ignored. Since 2000 the short term oscillations appear to be suppressed , this could be an indication of ‘energy saturation’ and that multidecadal peak has been reached, implying significant cooling in the coming decades.
300 years of the AMO from Mann, Gray etc.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-recon.htm
[Response: As the person who coined the term “AMO” I figure it’s appropriate for me to comment. The AMO, as we have shown in numerous articles, has little influence on global (or even Northern Hemisphere) average temperature. Its largely a zero sum game because it mostly associated with changes in the transport of heat between regions, and not the total heat budget of the planet. I talk about the history of the AMO (and my role in it) in my book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars –mike http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/023115254X/ ]
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/08/climate-indices-to-watch/comment-page-1/#comment-247360
Legitimate challenge to the academic from an amateur
Hi Dr. Mann
According to what I find
– Zero sum game
yes across 9-10 or 64-5 years, but necessarily not in between, unless a symmetrical section is selected
– changes in the transport of heat between regions
The SST changes trend direction almost simultaneously (within 1-2 years, across most of the North Atlantic, while e.g. subpolar gyre has cycle of about two decades. It is more likely that the AMOscillations are responsible for transport of heat in the vertical direction (from surface downwards) and it can be adequately represented as an amplification system (see link below)
– has little influence on global (or even Northern Hemisphere)
The N.H. Tav (detrended) and the AMO are inextricably linked together (with high uncertainty of order of precedence) as I show here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Since the ‘AMO’ type oscillations are detectable in other areas of the globe, the oscillations are most likely globally generated, but due the North Atlantic’s specific properties, their presence there is more evident.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-bore-hole/comment-page-21/#comment-247367
Off with ‘inconvenient intruder’ to the ‘Bore Hole’ since he doesn’t appear to be interested in purchasing the book ‘The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars’ even at the significant discount
vukcevic:Science advances not by the acquiescence, but by questioning every single assertion
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.
Translation:
We hate that you keep ignoring us smart scientists. We hate that you keep doing your own research that disproves all our hard work and makes us look stupid. We hate that we have to keep trying to sell our story over and over becasue you bring up facts over and over.
We hate that your efforts are causing other people, much of the general public, to disbelieve what we claim as well.
We hate you all and want to find a way to make you all go away.
These things will pass.
Sociologists have been nibbling at the corners of my profession for at least 50 years.
In retrospect, some of it was useful. R E Pahl’s work helped to explain how people actually interact with their environment and each other. A useful counter-balance to the shibboleths that would have prevailed otherwise.
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/16/3/11.html
Another Kari Norgaard. Wondering aloud what to “do about” contrarians. Like we’re a creeping cancer on their pristine landscape of flitting social justice butterflies. Jeez, Louise, will someone please give these people a shake.
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?
By analysing a blog in a manner which is manifestly prejudiced they can produce whatever results they wish to produce because they consider science to be a philosophical ideology, constructed by the mind, not an external search for truth and measurable reality. Just like CAGW activists, for them, 2+2 can equal whatever they want it to.
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……
Jerome Ravetz,
Science is based on the scientific method. PNS is not. Therefore, PNS is not science.
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.
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
Obsession with discussing the science? “Advancing the discourse” apparently means improving the
propagandacommunications andmassagingmessaging.Jerome Ravetz;
Of course PNS is open to abuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you and the climate science community are doing exactly that.
>>>Orson Olson says:
>>>richardscourntney’s cautions are something to take seriously.
>>>Prof. Max Boykoff spoke to the Denver Cafe Scientifique last June.
The Boykoff Bros. did write the “Balance as Bias” paper, bit of an Orwellian title, that claimed the “contrarian” viewpoint is over reported.
And in the case of many climsci people, science only advances one funeral at a time.
Be fair, she’s identified a sceptic blog and a very good one, so she’s streets ahead of her Australian competition 😉
However, I do doubt she can work out what makes this blog so successful. Warmists seem to lack empathy for sceptic motivations. Perhaps it goes hand in hand with their inability to self examine and realise they haven’t actually cut their own CO2 footprints. Warmist psychologists are looking for the essence of what makes sceptic blogs successful but the answer can’t be taught. It’s passion, integrity, common sense, hard work, persistence, humour, warmth, fairness and self sacrifice. If you lack those qualities you can’t fake them. Mann, Gleick, Trenberth, Oreskes, Romm, Mooney, Gore, Prince Charles… Oh boy!
I love the comment “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”. A bit like saying ‘I don’t know why the prisoner keeps asking for a retrial, when he should be choosing his method of execution.’
I’ll add that while WUWT and the other sceptic blogs are doing a tremendous service, I doubt they’re the major factor in waning AGW support. It’s more a case of warmists losing than we’re winning. Franziska Hollender and her ilk need to ask sceptics why we’re sceptical, not how. Sceptics are a symptom not the disease.
… “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…
Jerome Ravetz,
There is a very good likelihood that an asteroid large enough to destroy all of humanity will strike the earth at any moment. Stakes high, matter urgent, facts uncertain. Should we put everything we have into building anti-asteroid missiles just in case?
There are considerable nuclear war heads in the former USSR which are poorly secured and in the hands of unstable governments or terrorists could wreaque havoque on the western world. Stakes high, matter urgent, facts uncertain. Should we use our nuclear arsenal to obliterate the former USSR just in case?
There are dormant volcanoes all over the earth like the one underneath Yellowstone that make Krakatoa look like a firecracker. Any one of them could erupt at any time and civilization as we know it would end, billions would die. Stakes high, matter urgent, facts uncertain. Should we put all of our resources into excavating them and finding ways to relieve the pressure and ensure this doesn’t happen? Or do we only put half our resources into that and the other half into the anti-asteroid missile program? Should we ask the former USSR nations to help us out with the volcano issue and THEN blow them to smithereans?
This is the true face of your PNS garbage. It is a way of rationalizing the irrational. It is a way of making emotional decisions seem logical while ignoring the science that would allow us to make logical decisions.