Guest post by W. Jackson Davis (who attended the seminar today as listed below)
The contrarian discourse in the blogosphere–what are blogs good for anyway?
Franziska Hollender, Institute for Social Studies of Science, University of Vienna CSTPR Conference Room, 1333 Grandview Avenue. Tuesday Sept. 11, 2012
Summary from CSTPR
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 performances 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.
Approximate Transcript by W. Jackson Davis
(vetted for accuracy by Ms. Hollender)
Introduction
I did this study because this “mediated” society [one blanketed with diverse media] calls the integrity of science into question. A changing media landscape provides new possibilities for public discussion and participation.
Anthony Watts received an invitation to this talk and posted it online. It received 476 comments. The comment section verified my results and provided extended peer-review at the same time.
This study was done as a Master’s thesis–a small scale study by a graduate student. I sampled 7 blog posts by Anthony Watts between 2006 and 2012. I used principles of critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, Wodak). The climate blog “Watt’s Up With That” (WUWT) is ranked 118 of more than one million. WUWT gets 3 million hits per month. My results should be seen as an in-depth case study rather than overview of the field.
Discourse analysis–my primary methodology–is used to analyze prevalent power structures and views language as a social practice. provides overview of prevalent power structures.
Results
Normal science (as promulgated by Thomas Kuhn) is seen as the goal by bloggers above all else. However, their request is to provide people broadly with the means and education to evaluate and disseminate the scientific data they provide, which does not fit with the principles of normal science in which the production and review of results of inquiry stay inside the scientific community and even within a certain paradigmatic community.
Post-normal science (defined by Funtowitcz and Ravetz) as practiced by the blogger community is described as anti-scientific, yet the blog community does extended peer-review and demands the further opening of science towards the public. She believes that whether post-normal science is anti-scientific may be debatable.
Post-normal science is, in her view, a description, not a prescription. Normal science no longer fits with complex socio-economic factors that influence science.
Analyzing the seven WUWT posts, she finds discursive strategies on WUWT to include ridicule, personal attacks, and name-calling. She says this is formally discouraged on the site, but nonetheless occurs.
Narrative structures utilized on WUWT include: 1) Scientific data dissemination. 2) Critique of scientific findings. 3) Social and political implications of climate change. 4) Climate change as a political tool to challenge capitalism and impose a new model of wealth onto the American public.
Comment thread narratives include: 1) The authority and trustworthiness of science. 2) The role of science in society. These are often discussed at length.
Discussion
Science itself is not a sound action-basis and does not determine what the results of scientific inquiry imply for society. Science is not free of values and beliefs, it is not done under the exclusion of social, economic and political factors.
Data represent a social construction. Who constructs the data, and for what purpose, is relevant to the analysis. Nothing is without (observational) bias. In fact data construction is never unbiased. There is always a translation between the observed phenomenon,what we observe and what we record as the data that represent what we have observed.
The choice of media arena is crucial to the discourse. Some people say blogs, and post-normal science, is a sideshow (WUWT), irrelevant, and unimportant. However, choice of media is crucial. This is among the reasons she wanted to research it.
Gate-keeping exists implicitly and explicitly on blogs, including WUWT. Censorship is taking place. Hostile comments prohibit an open and constructive discourse–but gate-keeping is no longer imposed by the medium but by human intervention. Interactivity is high, manifest as responses to posts and subsequent responses to posters.
Not all of this is true for WUWT–there is definitely gate-keeping, however. Certain kind of comments are welcome, while others are deleted by the site manager (gate-keeper).
There are very few dissenting comments on WUWT, and if so, they are viciously attacked. Self-selection of contributors therefore takes place, under the influence of and to avoid prospective attacks on views expressed.
These are all things that happen at WUWT–it is not that free, not everyone is welcome. There is gate-keeping.
Interactivity of the WUWT blog is high. No post has less than 50 comments, and the seven posts analyzed here received up to 400 comments.
Example: The post advertising this talk was published on Sept. 1, 2012, receiving at least 476 comments. Personal attacks on Ms. Hollender were commonplace, including “This girl has a brain the size of a peanut.”
She experienced extensive misunderstanding of certain terms and notions “science as ideology, “avowals of distrust, “linguistic performances.” Plans to disrupt and intervene in her presentation were posted. One comment said to offer her another Zoloft and put her by the window, she’ll enjoy the bright colors in the sunlight.”
On the plus side, the constant questioning encompassed in blog comments holds scientists accountable. She agrees with this function, which she considers valuable. This is what she expressed as avowals of distrust, which is a term from speech-act theory and describes linguistic performances that accomplish something beyond a statement.
The example of the post announcing her talk, and the many responses, illustrate exactly some of the problems she sees with the blog. About 250 have nothing to do with her talk, and instead diverge to off-track issues–and there is no formal mechanism to keep the comments on track.
Responses
Post-normal science is a description, not a prescription. It is something that is happening, not something that should be happening. We have problems now, certain things are at stake. What comes out of science is one thing–what we do with it is another.
“Science is not an ideology, but it is not free of values and beliefs–and what role science plays in our society is a matter of ideology.”
“Blogs are an underrated media arena and need to be taken more seriously in academia–extended peer review works very well in the Blogosphere, but constructive discourse is not happening because of personal attacks and ridicule.”
Peer-review needs to be extended toward wider public, “extended peer review” using non-traditional approaches. People who are not expert in the field should engage, look at material, point out mistakes. This function works very well in the blogosphere. Often papers are reviewed like this (example of Roger Pielke on his blog). This facilitates uncovering of mistakes and inconsistencies. Constructive discourse is mixed up, however, with “noise”–personal attacks, non-constructive replies, etc.
Every scientist used to criticism–but not used to being called “ridiculous.” Blogs would work better without the non-constructive discourse.
She personally takes no position on climate change in order to remain objective in her analysis. She is unbiased, deliberately avoids sitting in either of the corners.
“Q and As”
Q: Are you personally involved [in the issue of climate change and its causes]?
A. No, she deliberately avoids taking either side on ethical grounds. She will not engage, because this would compromise her objectivity.
Q. Productive criticisms emerge from this blog–does same come out of journals? Does vitriol facilitate critical attitude even though it is harsh?
A. Yes, generates content and visibility, and so vitriol is not all bad. It can lead to constructive discourse. Also steers away many people. Also generates a lot of media attention.
Re: open source journals–they still stay within the scientific boundaries. You can access them, though it is hard if you are a lay person. Blogs a better medium to reach a wider public than just your own colleagues. Access is not the same. Blogs are superior in this regard.
Q. Have you observed any difference between Anglo sphere blog tradition and European tradition?
A. She has not read many German blogs–not as many. She does read some institutional blogs, but there is less of a divide in Germany than in US, so do not have two oppositional views on climate. Don’t have the same diversion of opinion in Europe.
Q. How can you learn and take back to journals to get them to engage a broader audience?
What can the journals do [to reap this benefit of blogs]?
A. The journal Nature Climate Change offers a possible model–it has moved to an online format, there are chat rooms. There is still a barrier to access, however. The reason is economic; when you have a print journal, have to pay for it. The access [under this business model] cannot be free to everyone. Individuals can always seek out information by going to a University library, but this is not generally done. Nature Climate Change has made a step toward broader access with online forum. Scientific journals do use a certain kind of language, but it is not journals’ responsibility to teach this to the public, it is the responsibility of each individual.
Q. Your presentation is concerned with discourse between two groups [“warmists” and “skeptics”]; how do you view the two camps and where do you sit?
A. She is still undecided on the science. She feels she cannot take either side because she does not have all the [scientific] information required. She is not a climate scientist–she is undecided. Adapting to climate change may require certain lifestyle changes, which she does embrace (such as recycling). She nonetheless believes that it is important to keep an open mind on both sides. Science never proves anything beyond doubt. Still, the question remains as to what we should do about climate change. The precautionary principle is important–it is essential to act sooner than later.
Q. Do blogs help generate new ideas and avenues of research?
A. Different roles of commenters–there is the police function, aimed at exerting power and silencing oppositional voices. Another role is productive–criticism, reinforcement, engaging information.
Q. Do you see same people serving the same role repeatedly, or do people switch roles?
A. Both. Blogs are more complex than they appear.
Q. My question is about the blogs’ influence on the relation of “normal” and “post-normal” science. Many people who post on WUWT do so because they cannot get their findings published in what they consider a biased and even corrupted climate science peer-review system. Do the blogs enable exposure of new ideas that can enter the discourse of “normal” science?
A. She only looked at Watt’s posts, and not at the guest posts that would pertain more to this question. Guest posts are written by knowledgeable people. She cannot judge whether guest posters would be able to publish what they write on WUWT. It is generally not clear whether they tried. Anyone can write anything they want–there probably are ideas that do not have peer review that can be beneficially published on blog.
Q. Do other blogs have a more balanced or “intermediate” view on climate change? I am thinking of the Judith Curry blog–is this an intermediate view on climate?
A. Judith Curry has adopted “warmist” views [views supportive of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming], in Watt’s opinion, but her blog gets many diverse comments as well. Interaction between bloggers is interesting. Most blogs have distinct viewpoints, but none encourage diverse views.
Comment from audience. Competitive discourse as on blogs may be a “purer” method of sorting out the “truth.” Aristotle used in his rhetoric. Blogs may be modern equivalent. Gecker [sp?] and Posner [sp?] at the University of Chicago have economic blog where they debate each other on economic matters using this format.
Reply. There is initiative in Europe called “deliberative democracy”–citizens have access to information and experts. It works well, although it takes a lot of effort and expense.
Comment from audience. People are generally getting very negative on blogs right now in U.S., maybe because of the political season.
Reply. She says this is part of the reason she looked at 2006-2012–she wanted to integrate over time. She wanted to control for short-term fluctuations, including seasonal and political, as a kind of “control.”
Comment from audience. There is a major misunderstanding of [your position on] blogs — you (she) is not taking a side, but rather just describing what is going on.
Reply. She agrees–she does not take sides. She is descriptive, not prescriptive. She feels very misunderstood in that regard.
Comment from audience. A book that comes to mind is Republic of Science, by Ian C. Jarvie. He edited some journal the philosophy of social science. He defends an Anglo-American norm, very much non consciously adopted by most scientists. Ravetz came out that it is the urgency of the matter that drives standards.
Reply. She replies that post-normal science does NOT promote lower standards…one of the main problems is that whether climate change is taking place, and whether anthropogenic. The other side is concerned with what to do about it after having adopted what they perceive as a scientific consensus, so the discussion between the two opposing groups is not about the same thing anymore, which makes it frustrating for both sides.
______________________________________________________________________
The representative of the host organization, CSTPR, stated that both audio and visual of this seminar will be posted on sciencepolicyColorado.edu in the next couple of weeks.
===========================================================
Comment by Anthony:
For the record, Ms. Hollender never contacted me nor asked any questions online that I am aware of. She states that she sampled seven WUWT blog posts to come to her conclusions. As of this writing, there are 7,764 published stories, which would make her sample size 7/7764 = ~ 0.0009 or .09%. I think that if I were to do a study with a sample size that small, I’d probably be laughed at.
Since she chose what posts to sample, I have no idea what if any personal bias she might have intentionally or inadvertently introduced by her choices. I do know this though, her statement of:
Interactivity of the WUWT blog is high. No post has less than 50 comments, and the seven posts analyzed here received up to 400 comments.
The “no post has less than 50 comments” is demonstrably false. There are many many posts at WUWT which have less then 50 comments, especially in the early days of 2006 and 2007. However, even recent posts such as:
Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup for 9/9/2012
…has only 7 comments, so this suggests to me that she wasn’t very careful with her sampling methods, and perhaps used personally formed opinions rather than hard data to come to that conclusion.
Also as of this writing there are 895,357 approved comments and the traffic count is at 125,607,045 views.
I don’t claim WUWT to be the perfect venue, and clearly there are many things that could be done better here, but I think the numbers speak for themselves. If there’s any other climate blog that can garner that kind of reach, please let me know. I encourage her to do an identical study on RealClimate, and note what she finds there, especially when it comes to gatekeeping.
UPDATE: Just a few minutes after posting, Fran Hollender responded in comments. Here’s that comment along with my reply:
Fran Submitted on 2012/09/11 at 9:39 pm
I wish you had consulted me on your added comments, too. In my talk I specifically said that in my sample (!), no post had less than 50 comments.
REPLY: It certainly doesn’t read that way, and you vetted the document by W. Jackson Davis before posting was done here. Not knowing which posts you sampled, I can’t confirm anything of what you talked about.
And further, how could I contact you? You’ve never revealed yourself to me or to WUWT that I am aware of….until now. But a search shows you commented under a fake name here on 02/07/2012 as “thedetroiter”.
Here’s the two comments:
===============================
thedetroiter 2012/02/07 at 4:27 am
Oh, as an addition: even here in Germany we know not to trust anything the BILD writes. Most of you won’t understand the BILDblog, but its mission is to debunk their bullshit.
Before using a BILD article as a basis for an argument, thing again. Next time maybe just enjoy the naked ladies and move on.
================================
thedetroiter Submitted on 2012/02/07 at 3:25 am
Right. Green activist, you say? Vahrenholt was a lobbyist for Shell and responsible for “improving their public image”. He now works for one of the biggest energy companies in Germany.
================================
These suggest you have biases too.
– Anthony
UPDATE2: Fran has responded to criticisms in a lengthy comment here
William says:
September 12, 2012 at 11:26 am
Grand post.
RichieP.
Poor comment RichieP, she has commented since, (although yet to justify her clear attempt at misinforming her audience)
Such incorrect posts serve little purpose to anyone. Further while I think her thesis is fatally flawed, she hardly fits the behavior of a troll.
RobertInAz says:
September 12, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Perhaps there would have been less “attacks” if “Frans” hadn’t felt the need to write in her opening comments the inflammatory (two options for action) Totalitarian comment quoted below. Particularly in light of her privately expressed future desire to join the UN and rule us Contrarians.
“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.”
thedetroiter says:
September 12, 2012 at 10:42 am
I’m not going to drag this out into a long list of errors and disingenuities, other’s have done that more than adequately, and detail you seem to have missed.
What you call “your personal life” here is, in fact, a discussion of the presumptions and biases that you brought to the project, which people here found online, and which you explicitly denied.
Hiding the prior comments on your online journals is only circumstantial evidence of “guilt” in this sense, the comments shared from those blocked pages is enough. I can tell you consider them to be disconnected from this study, but the study is based on those assumptions.
You lied about the assumptions you were “bringing to the party.” You lost credibility because of that, at least here, away from the people who share your assumptions.
Ironically, if you had simply said up front what your presumptions were, even though you consider them to be tangential, you would not only have produced (slightly) stronger work, but you wouldn’t have had to go to the trouble of “scrubbing” your online record.
The tangled web and all that.
I admit to a prejudice of my own, actually – I hate passive-aggressive games. You know, the kind where you insult someone (perhaps even my marginalizing them and describing them as a problem to be dealt with instead of people who sincerely hold differing opinions), are insulted in return, and then claim victim status because you were insulted.
RobertInAz;
I scored 12 comments as personal attacks on Ms. Hollender. This is 2.5% of the total. Because of the negativity associated with personal attacks, I would give Ms. Hollender a pass on this assertion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When someone BEGINS the conversation by dismissing out of hand the opinions of an entire group of people, labelling them contrarians, and then asking what to “do” with them, and consludes with a strategy to completely marginalize them in order to no longer consider their objections at all so that the conversation can be exclusively about mitigation strategies, exactly what would you expect. 2.5% isn’t concerning, it is remarkable that she received that level of civility at all.
When someone walks up to you at the bar, says
“I think you are a f***ing idiot whose opinion is meaningless and I have to find a way to “do” something with you so that you shut up and are heard from no more”
s there a single word of response that occurrs to you that falls into the category of civil discourse?
Just because her threatening language is couched in high sounding terminology and cleverly articulated prose doesn’t change the fact that it can be summarized as “how do we get these contrarians to f*ck off and disappeard?”
Score that.
In politics, this is known as opposition research and it’s an apt metaphor.What do they believe, and why? Which groups can be broken off from their collective and assimilated into our collective? Who can be coerced, cajoled, bribed or intimated into quitting their cause and taking up ours? Where are they weak, and which of our strengths can be used to exploit that weakness?
While we’re pointing out the complete fallacies and logical inconsistancies, I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to that fact that, yet again, we have the complete inability of those who couch their arguments in the context of PNS to mount a defense of it. Ravetz jumped in a few threads ago to define it, and when taken to task for the glaring problems with his definition and explanation alike, he just went silent. Similarly, much of Ms Hollender’s premise is predicated upon PNS which has been roundly criticized in this thread. Despite being challenged on this matter, she has spoken not a single word in defense of the PNS construct.
Oddly, I find that basing arguments on PNS is a favourite strategy of people like Hollender and Ravetz. But when directly confronted on the complete logic failure of PNS, they simply go quiet.
As I said on another thread, proponents of PNS are like grifters and flim flam artists. When they realize that their mark has cottoned onto their game, they don’t try and explain, they don’t make excuses, and they don’t admit guilt. They just move on to a new mark that is hopefully more gullible.
Which is exactly why I expect no further response from Ms Hollender.
RobertInAz, you may score the foregoing as an insult.
“Score that.”
What I see here is that there are a few who justify uncivil behavior based on a perceived insult. I’m not sure that Ms. Hollender comments raise to the level of an ad homonym attack, much less a personal attack. Recall that I did not classify attacks on sociology or sociologists as personal attacks.
I also believe the personal attacks are largely untrue. For example, I suspect that almost all who regularly post on this blog who do maintain civility would, if we were to directly engage with Ms. Hollender in a discussion on these issues would not find her to be an insufferable, peanut brained bimbo.
What I find interesting is that the response to the question “..what to do with the contrarians?” from some here is very prickly. Honesty demands that we admit that the true believers really do want to figure out “what to do with the contrarians.” We are all familiar with the the techniques which range from childish to illegal. Very few who want to know “what to do with the contrarians” engage in civil discourse. Some prickly posters assumed that the the two enumerations of possible responses that follow “Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them.” purported to be an exhaustive list. In the larger context, it clearly was not. For those who want to figure out “what to do with the contrarians”, perhaps it was. For many, another response would be to stand up and cheer. I do not know if the third and other alternatives are outside Ms. Hollender’s conceptual framework or if she simply failed to mention them because they are immaterial to her thesis.
Overall, I find the thesis for the talk to be poorly framed and, in some parts, nonsensical. The talk itself, as described, was better.
I have not read all of the comments responding to the talk itself. I find that it raises some valid points. However, as some have pointed, the strength of Ms. Hollender’s work would have been greatly enhanced by engaging with this community earlier in her study. If she could persist through the insults and ad homonym attacks, she would find much intellectual rigor in this discourse.
When science fails AGW proponents, they resort to social studies (Bain, Manne etc…) to study the weird population that does not jump in the PNS boat. No doubt some medical study will come along highlighting some brain deficiencies preventing “contrarians” (LOL) to embrace saving the planet… Once the whole gamut of studies will also fail, they’ll open camps.
W. Earl Allen says:
September 12, 2012 at 7:38 am
“Thus, in Fran’s thinking Post normal science isn’t a different kind of science at all. It is the actions and words that occur *after* science is done with its objective data and replicated experiments – thus, POST (after) normal science.”
Thanks for that. I was struggling to grasp exactly what PNS is, and I think you have defined it rather well. In which case, post normal science isn’t science at all, and the use of the term is an attempt to confer the legitimacy conveyed by the word science on policy formulation, aka politics, in true gramscian fashion.
Nothing is without (observational) bias. In fact data construction is never unbiased. There is always a translation between the observed phenomenon,what we observe and what we record as the data that represent what we have observed.
Which is where replication in science comes in. Anyone with any bias is free to replicate any finding. If a finding stands up to multiple replications then we can conclude, bias did not affect the findings in any significant way.
What Ms H says is true, but trivial, as the scientific method has solved the problem. And I’ll note that barriers to replication put up by various climate scientists is a frequent topic here and at other blogs precisely because unrestricted replication is one of the cornerstones of the scientific method. The blogs are fighting for science against prominent climate scientists attempts to subvert the scientific method.
“Once the whole gamut of studies will also fail, they’ll open camps.”
Never happen. Too many “contrarians” are essential to making things work.
“Which is exactly why I expect no further response from Ms Hollender. RobertInAz, you may score the foregoing as an insult.”
Why should Ms. Hollender or anybody come here to be insulted? I did not carefully read all of the PNS comments but my impression is that the discourse got pretty rough between regular contributers here.
I would actually not score the post as an insult.
RobertInAz says:
September 12, 2012 at 8:04 pm
“Once the whole gamut of studies will also fail, they’ll open camps.”
Never happen. Too many “contrarians” are essential to making things work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In 1984, Sarajevo was the location of the Winter Olympics, one of the iconic symbols of peaceful international competition. 8 years later a war erupted in the area featuring mass murder (ethnic cleansing) and systematic rape. Yasser Arafat threatened to scuttle the Oslo accords rather than allow Israel to evacuate the muslim children of Sarajevo to Israel to reciprocate for the many jews who were saved by muslim families from the nazis during the holocaust as he would rather these children would die than become pro Israeli muslims.
The descent from civilization to madness is frighteningly swift and it begins with the assumption that is cannot happen again.
The precautionary principle is mentioned by Ms. Hollender and is widely quoted by warmists, but I frequently think of the hippocratic oath when this is brought up. Specifically: First, do no harm. Their application of the precautionary principle is akin to applying a tourniquet to the neck for a nosebleed.
The law of unintended consequences also springs to mind, as biofuels have taken food out of the mouths of babes.
I believe a little caution is needed when applying the precautionary principle.
RobertInAz;
I would actually not score the post as an insult.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What kind of logic must it require to fail to score my comment as an insult when I explicitly said that it was? Who knows better what meaning my words were intended to convey. You? Or me?
We’ve arrived in a very strange world where there now appears to be a branch of science that can rank my comments as not being an insult when I myself made it very clear that it was. That being the case, I can not give your characterization of 2.5% of comments to be insulting any credence.
RobertInAz says:
September 12, 2012 at 7:52 pm
The point this “very prickly” poster makes is how can she reasonably not expect some insults when her opening comment is such a putdown. Wondering how to deal with us (not as skeptics of CAGW science, but as the more derogatory sounding term “contrarians”) – either write us off as an annoying sideshow or fight us. Dontcha think a particularly arrogant comment comimg from one who obviously has little or no understanding of climate science?
Or perhaps your post was just too obtuse for me to understand it.
lurker says:
September 12, 2012 at 8:32 pm
The precautionary principle is mentioned by Ms. Hollender and is widely quoted by warmists, but I frequently think of the hippocratic oath when this is brought up. Specifically: First, do no harm. Their application of the precautionary principle is akin to applying a tourniquet to the neck for a nosebleed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is worse than that. What PNS does is focus the discussion on the precationary principle as it applies to the specific issue at hand. This is a rather clever piece of deception because it causes us to focus on that specific issue to the exclusion of all others. To extend your analogy, suppose there is blood on a person’s face, neck, body and legs from a profuse nose bleed. Should we apply tourniquets to the person’s neck, arms, body and legs until we figure out where the blood is coming from?
The same applies to the climate debate. When facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent (per the definition by Ravetz) what should we do about…..
A potential planet killing asteroid strike on earth?
Iran using a nuclear weapon on Israel?
Israel retaliating and plunging the entire middle east into war?
Israel launching a pre-emotive strike and plunging the entire middle east into war?
Terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear weapon from the poorly gaurded arsenal in the former Soviet Union?
North Korea selling nuclear technology to terrorits?
Iran selling nuclear technology to terrorists?
The common cold crossing with AIDS to cause a highly communicable disease that would wipe out billions?
Shall I go on? EACH of these meets the definition of PNS! Yet are we considering taking action on any of them to prevent them? Are we considering nuking Israel and/or Iran to prevent them from nuking each other and starting a larger war? Are we considering nuking eastern Europe to ensure that one of those poorly gauarded nukes doesn’t get into the wrong hands? Are we considering rounding up everyone on earth with a case of the cold and putting them in quarantine until they are healthy again to ensure that their cold virus doesn’t mutate and get away? Of course we are NOT doing these things because it is obvious with just a cursory examination of the facts that the consequences of taking these actions are likely to be worse than the consequences being avoided, and that the issues being avoided might never actually happen at all, meaning we’ve inflicted major harm to prevent…. nothing.
These things all fit the definition of PNS as stated by Ravetz. Yet they are obviously ludicrous things to act upon, and I’m sure people can think up many more examples. One of the major failures of PNS is that when one applies it to ALL situations that meet the definition, it becomes obvious that the precautionary principle would result in the worst crimes against humanity we can possibly imagine to prevent long lists of things that are unlikely to happen. Don’t let the PNS proponents play this game. If they want to assert the value of PNS, than have them show how it can be broadly applied without causing disaster. If PNS has value, then it should apply “across the board” to all possibilities that meet the definition.
davidmhoffer: “When someone BEGINS the conversation by dismissing out of hand the opinions of an entire group of people, labelling them contrarians, and then asking what to “do” with them,”
davidmhoffer: “When someone walks up to you at the bar, says …”
Which begs the question – Would some of these Elitist be as arrogant and condescending face to face in a bar as they are when hiding in their Ivory Towers behind media print?
davidmhoffer: “Score that.”
Hear, Hear!
Jerome Ravetz defines PNS as:
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’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I present the following questions, each of which represents a situation in which facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent. I’ve provided some tongue in cheek multiple choice answers to demonstrate that if the situation is, in fact, URGENT, then expanding puzzle solving beyond a closed set of immediately available practitioners may or may not be “adequate” but that is immaterial because….all the other choices are worse.
1. You pull a child from the water. The child is unconscious and not breathing. You don’t know what to do. You have a phone with speed dials to a number of acquaintances whose professions are known to you. Do you choose to call:
a) the lifeguard
b) the mechanical engineeer
c) the stock broker
2. You awake to the smell of smoke, and upon investigation, discover that your neighbour’s house is on fire. Do you call:
a) the fire department
b) your neighbour
c) the chair of your employer’s health and safety committee
3. You are in a public place when a terrorist starts shooting people. You are armed, and have a clear shot. Do you:
a) shoot the terrorist
b) offer the terrorist the phone number of a good psychologist
c) organize a committee of innocent bystanders
4) You awake to the smell of smoke, and upon investigation, discover that your house is on fire. Do you:
a) get your family out of the house.
b) phone your neighbour
c) organize a neighbourhood watch meeting
If you answered anything other than a) to any of these questions, you may be suffering from PNS.
There is an increasing trend in the warmist mindset to believe that sceptics have got something. Not the right opinion on climate but the success in communication. It’s what’s driving this increase in analysis. If only they could work out what the magic at WUWT is then it could be reproduced (for the cause) or stopped.
Warmists look at sceptic blogs as the cause of inaction on CO2 but contrarians are merely a symptom of a growing distrust in climate science not the driver. They can’t use the successful formula of WUWT to solve climate science’s problems because there is no formula to copy. Indeed the only thing that could be copied is the relatively light hand on snipping comments and for warmists that would be counter productive. They don’t want the casual observer to know how many questions can be raised about AGW, the solutions and the policy. Unfortunately for them, the questions get asked anyway, in private if not in public.
WUWT is a great blog but it doesn’t use the best in web site bells and whistles to be successful. There are warmist sites that are far more sophisticated but have almost nonexistent audiences. How much money has been spent by governments and charities to try and sell AGW? What could WUWT possibly offer to counter that? A voice for concerns that are not being addressed.
The other element about the sceptic community that appeals to warmists is the spontaneous crowd sourcing that sometimes goes on. It’s actually a fluke rather than a feature and is usually the work of a very few magnificent individuals. It’s not really something that can be poached, not least because the bulk of those heroes are the main blog owners like Mr Watts. If you want their brilliance, the best way would be to start listening to them, preferably also giving them a significant job title and an excellent salary.
Part of the existing service climate science is getting for free is the extended peer review that warmists like Ms Hollender hint is a good idea. I don’t know about other sceptics but I don’t see extended peer review as a goal but as a bandage on an infected process. If a business relied on the public ironing out the bugs in their product they’d lose either custom (think Microsoft) or even their freedom if a product killed someone. Climate science doesn’t even have a complaints department, let alone quality control.
You can’t use blogs to replace paid researchers, even if some brilliant souls do just that. Climate science is systemically flawed and the prime value of the sceptic blogs is to point out the problems, not solve them. Climate science should be ruthlessly rooting out its own faults, it’s the first step to regaining credibility. It might make sceptic blogs redundant.
RobertInAz:
I find your series of posts starting at September 12, 2012 at 3:36 pm to be naïve at best and disingenuous at worst. I could demolish all of it, but I write to refute one of your points because it is so dangerous that I do not want to dilute its importance by mentioning other matters.
Nobody has “attacked” Ms Hollender “personally” or otherwise, and it is dangerous to suggest that those who have defended themselves against her vicious assault have attacked her.
The “study” and presentation of Ms Hollender was a considered attack on those whom she demeans as being “contrarians”, and she has posed the question of how to “deal with them”.
Ms Hollender crossed the Atlantic from Germany to give a presentation on how to “deal with” and to “defeat” “contrarians”. Please consider how she would have been received if her presentation were about “Jews” and not “contrarians”.
As I wrote in my posts addressed to her at September 12, 2012 at 12:23 pm
and
There were NO “personal attacks” on Ms Hollender but there was a range of defences mounted against her attack on those whom she attempts to marginalise.
This matter is not trivial. I strongly request that you read the post from davidmhoffer at September 12, 2012 at 8:27 pm. He provides a small number of the very many examples of the well-trodden road which Ms Hollender is traveling.
Richard
mfo said: September 12, 2012 at 12:39 am
“She is still undecided on the science. She feels she cannot take either side because she does not have all the [scientific] information required. She is not a climate scientist–she is undecided.”
http://thedetroiter.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/halfway-house/
Amazing link! That’s a “private” WordPress account. Nobody can read it without a password. What will they think of next?
“Why should Ms. Hollender or anybody come here to be insulted?”
Where do they normally go……… I’m here all week don’t forget to tip the waiting staff….
“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’”
” I’ve provided some tongue in cheek multiple choice answers to demonstrate that if the situation is, in fact, URGENT, then expanding puzzle solving beyond a closed set of immediately available practitioners may or may not be “adequate” but that is immaterial because….all the other choices are worse.”
Criminals of PNS
1 Chesley Sullenberger
Indictment
The accused did wilfully and maliciously execute an emergency plan of action without proper consultation with the full stakeholder community; fully considering the precautionary principle; or obtaining extended peer review approval for his proposed actions.
2 Johnson Beharry VC
Indictment
On two occasions the accused willfully exceeded the design parameters of his vehicle without obtaining and collating the feedback , of the design, construction and engineering community involved in its design, and construction. Executed a plan of action without approval of the command authority, claiming “radio failure” . Failed to conduct an extended peer review with the insurgents forces thereby failing to obtain a comprehensive picture of the consequences of his actions.
3 Archimedes of Syracuse
Indictment
Whilst engaged in the quantitative assay of a valuable object the accused did knowingly and maliciously solve the problem without proper dialog with the items manufacturers; inconsiderately formulate new physical principles without proper discussion and debate and application of the precautionary principle towards the emotional state of other scientists; Failure to conduct an extended peer review with his community regarding the effect on societal harmony of spontaneous acts of public nudity when wet.