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
TinyCO2 says:
Until they start telling the truth, are open about their data, and quit manipulating the facts and their data, and abandon their ulterior agenda, they won’t have “success in communication”.
Or look at it this way–they ARE successful in their “communication”; problem is, nobody wants what they’re communicating.
As a consequence, we “contrarians” will always have the upper hand (or the only hand). There is no substitute for the truth.
Warmista are like Truthers: Lots of babble; no substance. For them, the pay is good but the profession is down there below car salesmen (and my apologies to car salesmen). They’ve traded their souls for filthy lucre.
That’s what they “communicate”.
These are all policy questions, not scientific questions. Does anyone really suppose we should say this is a risk, that is a risk, let’s spend any amount of time and resources to stop them, or should we consider and weigh the probability, along with the cost of action and inaction?
AGW proponents want us to do just that — work to stop AGW at any cost, without considering
1) What is the evidence there really is a problem?
2) How likely is CAGW?
3) What has happened in past warming periods?
4) If there is a problem, is it more effective to prevent AGW or mitigate it’s effects?
They simply don’t want to discuss any of these. The accept prima facie that AGW is happening, that it’s going to be catestrophic, that it must be prevented at any cost and they don’t want to study either the natural history of the climate or the thriving of human civilization during past warm periods.
They want to shut down debate. They don’t want to discuss facts, just beliefs.
richardscourtney says:
September 13, 2012 at 1:03 am
Your comment demonstrates one of the issues that Ms Hollender points out in her talk.
You deny that terms like “insufferable”, “bimbo”, “has a peanut for a brain” and “Offer her another Zoloft” are personal attacks. Thus you minimize the uncivil behavior of some commenters and confirm her observation that “…finds discursive strategies on WUWT to include ridicule, personal attacks, and name-calling.”
You then justify the attacks on Ms Hollender stating (in paraphrase form) that “she attacked us first”. In particular you state that “Secretly studying people then making public pronouncements on their collective behaviour is “attacking” them, and they will fight back.” I do agree that publicly engaging with this community prior to publishing would have helped her create a much better product. Labeling her failure to so engage as an “attack” requires a mindset I do not understand but that concerns me. For example, I do not consider the fact that you secretly studied my earlier posts and then made a public pronouncement that they were “.. naïve at best and disingenuous at worst.” To be an attack. It is discourse. We do not post here to ignored. We want to be read, analyzed and responded to by others. The fact that Ms Hollender’s reading, analysis and response does not fit a particular notion on how she ought to have done it does not constitute an attack.
Finally, you confirm Godwin’s law by engaging in Reductio ad Hitlerum.
It is clear to me that while most here on WUWT are here to engage in discourse, an unfortunate few are here to engage in combat. You have certainly not demonstrated that WUWT is a hospitable place for contrary ideas. It is sad. We could be so much more without the pejoratives.
I do see a couple of potential Josh cartoons here.
1.
Ms Hollander: “Discursive strategies on WUWT include ridicule, personal attacks, and name-calling”
Anthony: “Is reasoned critique a discursive strategy?”
Ms Hollander: “Uh”
2.
Ms Hollander: “Discursive strategies on WUWT include ridicule, personal attacks, and name-calling”
Comabative commenter: “Calling her an insufferable peanut brained bimbo who needs Zoloft is not name calling! Besides, she attacked us first! Besides, she does not play fair!
RobertInAz;
Ms Hollander: “Discursive strategies on WUWT include ridicule, personal attacks, and name-calling”
Comabative commenter: “Calling her an insufferable peanut brained bimbo who needs Zoloft is not name calling! Besides, she attacked us first! Besides, she does not play fair!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not funny and for anyone who followed the mutiple threads where Ms Hollender’s antics have been discussed, not representative of what happened. Your credibility is rapidly approaching that of Ms Hollender’s.
Be as insulted as you wish.
RobertInAz:
I have read your post at September 13, 2012 at 9:39 am and it seems you have severe reading comprehension difficulties, or you are a dissembler, or you failed to read my post at September 13, 2012 at 1:03 am.
The matters in my post to which I point you are far, far too serious for them to be dismissed as being
“She did it first”.
And your responses to davidmhoffer concerning what is and is not an insult suggest you are a dissembler.
These issues deserve much more consideration than your faux academic ‘analysis’. Impartial onlookers will not be fooled by such tactics.
Richard
I agree the comment was not called for and not productive, but I doubt some people can actually be insulted, so perhaps you waste your time on this comment.
“not representative of what happened”
I absolutely agree. My original post said 2.5% of the posts were personal attacks. My point is that those who engage in personal attacks have a disproportionate impact on the quality of the discussion because the person so attacked tends to go away. Hard to have a discussion with an absent person.
richardscourtney says:
September 13, 2012 at 10:00 am
“These issues deserve much more consideration than your faux academic ‘analysis’. Impartial onlookers will not be fooled by such tactics.”
I completely agree. I posted a longish response that remains in moderation. It logically would appear before my 9:39 am post. Trying to repost it results in a duplicate post message so I assume it will eventually appear.
Fran says: “Those who are interested in a constructive and calm discussion are welcome to let me know – I, in turn, will E-Mail you and get the party started.”
Since she leaves no email address or any other way to contact her, how would one let her know?
Follow-up, I thought that my comments would appear in order. Had I known they would not, I would have waited on my 9:39 comment until after the earlier, longer comment had made it through moderation.
“Since she leaves no email address or any other way to contact her, how would one let her know?”
Google is your friend. I see that her posted email is a gmail address rather than one associated with University of Colorado. Given the hostility demonstrated here, I think that is wise as she easily drop that address..
REPLY: Let me ask you a question. If your neighbor started looking at things your were doing at your home, writing it down, but only using 7 days of your life in that examination, and then shows up at the local University (in a surprise to you) to pitch a seminar about how much she knows about your lifelong habits, without telling you what 7 days of your life she looked at to tell the rest of the world how she has categorized you in her “research”, wouldn’t that be more than a bit put-offish?
Ms. Hollender has demonstrated essentially this scenario while remaining a phantom lurker here at WUWT until now. So I can’t really be sympathetic to her or her methods. if she can’t stand the heat then she should get out of the science kitchen. She knew full well what she was getting into from the start. – Anthony
RobertInAz;
It is clear to me that while most here on WUWT are here to engage in discourse, an unfortunate few are here to engage in combat. You have certainly not demonstrated that WUWT is a hospitable place for contrary ideas. It is sad. We could be so much more without the pejoratives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nonsense. Contrary ideas that have merit get a thorough and fair hearing in my experience. Contrary ideas that are pure drivel get treated like drivel. I’ve dished out my fair share of “pejoratives”….. OK, OK, way more than my fair share 😉 but I’ve been on the receiving end when I’m wrong to.
Your premise that it is hard to have a discussion with someone who is absent, supposedly because they have been insulted and simply go away, is pure bullsh*t. Someone who believes their opinion to be correct, and can articulate the reasons why, does so. Sticks and stones will break my bones but frankly, pixals on a screen are pretty much non threatening.
I submit you that those who do not respond when confronted with forcefull rebuttal, be it insult laced or excrutuatingly polite, simply have no response to give. They can’t defend their position and THAT is the primary reason they retreat into silence. I’ve challenged Ravetz multiple times in the politest tones possible, and he doesn’t respond to me. In fact, many people have challenged him in a polite and respectfull manner, and he consistantly responds only to the “easy ones”. The tough points, no matter how politely articulated, he simply ignores.
The same goes for Ms Hollender. The notion that she has been silenced by a few insults and mocking prevents her from responding to the substantive criticism how? She aspires to work for the UN and make decisions on behalf of the entire human race but runs and hides in the face of simple mocking? Is it the mocking she hides from? Or the very valid criticisms of her shoddy work that she has no answer to and so hides instead?
I’ve seem many trolls come and go from this forum over the years. The ones who have something of value keep on coming back, even though there is disagreement with them, expressed anywhere from polite rebuttal to stinging and insulting rebuke. It is my observation (anecdotal though it may be) that it is those that inject themselves into the conversation self assured of their moral and intellectual superiority who find that reality is that they are over their heads in a big way and get an education handed to them pronto who become “silent”.
RobertInAz:
Concerning Ms Hollender you say at September 13, 2012 at 11:12 am
Rubbish! My first post in this thread was at September 12, 2012 at 2:42 am. It was addressed to her and was a serious attempt to engage with her about her work. It listed my assessment of posts in this thread of use to her. She did not respond to that attempt at friendly help.
Later I made a ridiculing joke. She did not respond to that taunt, either. And she did not respond when I later posted an explanation of why I thought the taunt was warranted.
Then, at September 12, 2012 at 10:42 am she posted a whinging post about how her feelings had been hurt.
I answered her post – and I addressed it to her – at September 12, 2012 at 12:23 pm. That reply began by saying
I then made serious comments on her post I was answering. By no means could any of those comments be considered abusive. She chose to hide from those comments.
Subsequently, and in response to a post from you, I made much more serious objections to her behaviour which I deliberately did not include in my genuine attempt to engage with her following her post. And she has not responded to that.
So, you are deluded if you honestly think she is running away because she has reason to be offended. She has run away because she is incapable of facing what she has done.
Richard
Anthony: I think your analogy is stretched. Ms Hollender’s research goal is innocuous and I think it falls within the bounds of fair use of your content – I may be wrong about the latter belief. I’m waiting to view the talk, but my impression from the article above is that her comments about WUWT are generally favorable other than those associated with the gatekeeping function performed by combative commenters. I know and appreciate that you and others in the forefront of the climate change wars have been subjected to treatment that I described above as ranging from childish to illegal and I appreciate the combative personality that allows you to persevere in the face of all of that abuse. I am very grateful for all that (the collective) you do.
Now, I happen to be engaged in a project in which Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) play an important role. So I have some understanding on the laws and ethics surrounding human subject research in the United States. That is why I think your analogy is stretched. If I were a published author and some researcher did a review of one of my books and published a commentary about some aspect of that book and drew conclusions about my personality without telling me, is she acting unethically or immorally? Are books as content substantially different than blogs as content? Based on her comments as we see them above, do the articles selected have a material; bearing on her conclusions?
Ms Hollender solicited neither WUWT article about her talk. She stepped out into a battleground that I suspect she did not know existed and found an inhospitable reception – intellectually and personally. As I mentioned, I found the abstract of the talk very weak so the intellectual reception to the first article is understandable and appropriate. As you can surmise, I will always be opposed to all forms of ad homonym attacks as intellectually dishonest and, in many cases, abusive.
I am concerned about your comment: “if she can’t stand the heat then she should get out of the science kitchen.” What infer is people who have contrary views should ignore WUWT because they will be abused if they participate here. It is your blog and you can set whatever standard of behavior you want. As Ms Hollender pointed out most of the gatekeeping here is informal.
REPLY: Personally I think her methodology and your defense of it is unsupportable. As for your concern about my comment some reality check is needed. She studied a blog covertly and sprung a surprise, and you are concerned that “Ms Hollender solicited neither WUWT article about her talk.”. Well I’m sorry, but surely she had to know there would be discussions and criticisms. If she can’t handle those, then I think not only is her methodology weak, but her ability to defend it is even weaker. You are most certainly entitled to your opinion. Mine differs, we’ll leave it at that. – Anthony
davidmhoffer says:
September 13, 2012 at 11:32 am
“I submit you that those who do not respond when confronted with forcefull rebuttal, be it insult laced or excrutuatingly polite, simply have no response to give.” I disagree. People who are willing to have a discussion with you should not be subject to your insults if you want them to engage in the discussion. OTOH, people who are willing to engage in rhetorical combat with you might be more willing to persevere through your abuse to continue the discussion. I personally do not solicit rhetorical combat but, at my advanced age, I do have a thick skin.
“The notion that she has been silenced by a few insults and mocking prevents her from responding to the substantive criticism how?” As indicated above, she has not been silenced, she has chosen to not accept the abuse dished out here at WUWT and invited civil participants to a private forum to continue the discussion. A loss for all of us.
For crying out loud peoples, stop and take a long hard look at yourselves. Franziska is a masters student who did a study on blogs. She chose this blog. She reported her findings to a seminar, warts and all. And you act like its WW3. This place is rapidly becoming populated by the very intolerant bigots and hotheads who drive me away from other sites and here in the first place. Chill out and focus on the real issues. Oh, and try being nice to people for a change.
@RobertinAz: Google is apparently not my friend. I’m sure it’s not personal. However, I find no email address for Fran and no contact information anywhere. I just thought it was rather foolish to open up the possibility of discussion and then leave no way to actually achieve said discussion.
It probably does point to the insincerity of the person making the offer.
It is interesting that it is okay to call someone pea-brained, etc, and then complain when they call you a denier. Name-calling is name calling. I suppose you can use the childish response that “They did it first” but that really doesn’t fly. If you object to being called a denier and ridiculed, ridiculing and calling climate scientists “pea-brained” just makes you look hypocritical.
As for researchers using this blog for their studies and not informing the blog writer, this is the internet. If you really don’t believe that everything you write or say here is open to the public, perhaps going back to pen and paper would be good. Blogs are very public. People repost on their blogs all the time, often without the knowledge of the original writer. There is no privacy here. (There is also no privacy in my backyard and I have no control over what my neighbor or anyone else chooses to say or write about me. I can only respond to what they claim. I’ve been called a flaming liberal on blogs even thought my politics are pretty much Libertarian. People interpret things through their own personal filters.)
First of all, we need to define and deconstruct the concepts of ridicule, personal attacks, and name-calling before we can attach any meaning to what Franziska Hollender says.
RobertInAz says:
September 13, 2012 at 12:52 pm
“The notion that she has been silenced by a few insults and mocking prevents her from responding to the substantive criticism how?” As indicated above, she has not been silenced, she has chosen to not accept the abuse dished out here at WUWT and invited civil participants to a private forum to continue the discussion. A loss for all of us.
=========================================================
Hmmm… Her presentation is supposed to be about “blogs” in general using WUWT as an example? Right?
If she does not expect disagreement, at times expressed in terms aimed at her and her motives rather than her methods, then she doesn’t understand the nature of that which she’s studied.
(If it was not about blogs in general but WUWT in particular, then her bias is showing.)
richardscourtney says:
September 13, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Richard,
You and I have some fundamental disagreements about the nature of the discussion.
First, you (and Anthony) view her analysis as some kind of intrusion on this blog. I see it as a grad student looking for public content on which to write a research paper. See my response to Anthony above for more color. Hooray for blueskiesweather @ur momisugly 1:08 pm.
Second, you seem to want her to respond to a discussion initiated by you in the manner and time of your choosing – “It listed my assessment of posts in this thread of use to her. She did not respond to that attempt at friendly help.” -and – “Later I made a ridiculing joke. “ – Note I find your joke offensive. So between 3:42 AM and 5:45 am Colorado time you want from helpful post to outright ridicule and you still expect the young lady to hang around. In addition, in a blog article that is primarily about her work, you want her to individually respond to you – insults and all? I certainly disagree. The healthy behavior is to withdraw from such abuse.
Third, you seem to think she continues to follow the comments on this thread in anything like real time. If I were her, I would defer further review for a time when she can get together with friends and a case of Coors and then review the comments. Of course, she is Austrian and may go for an imported beer.
Fourth, you seem to think she is incapable of facing what she has done. I find the evidence for this conclusion to be vanishing small. Since you are unwilling to engage her in a civil discussion, you will never find out. I may form an opinion after reviewing the audio and the slides and exchanging a few very civil emails with Ms. Hollender.
RobertInAz:
At September 13, 2012 at 12:52 pm you say of Ms Hollender
That is wrong on all counts.
1.
She is not speaking and has closed her blog etc. so she has been “silenced” at least for now.
2.
She has not “chosen to not accept abuse being dished out here”: she has run away because having abused others she can’t take it herself.
3.
She claimed to invite people of her selection into “a private forum” but provided no contact details then closed her blog and her facebook page.
4.
She is no loss to anybody but her forthcoming collaboration with Max Boykoff suggests others probably will again use her as a pawn in future.
Richard
Gunga Din says:
September 13, 2012 at 1:44 pm
“If she does not expect disagreement, at times expressed in terms aimed at her and her motives rather than her methods, then she doesn’t understand the nature of that which she’s studied.”
I think she correctly identified several key dynamics in her analysis including the dynamic that has driven her not to participate in this discussion. As mentioned above, the informal gatekeepers she identified have driven her away using what Richard described as ridicule. Ms. Hollender did not ask for this discussion on this blog. So her refusal to participate in the face of the abuse is entirely appropriate.
Some here want it both ways. They want to be uncivil and still get a reasoned response.
RobertInAz:
I am writing this as a courtesy to show I read your post addressed to me at September 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm. It only took a few seconds so I did not waste much of my life.
Richard
RobertInAz says:
September 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Gunga Din says:
September 13, 2012 at 1:44 pm
“If she does not expect disagreement, at times expressed in terms aimed at her and her motives rather than her methods, then she doesn’t understand the nature of that which she’s studied.”
I think she correctly identified several key dynamics in her analysis including the dynamic that has driven her not to participate in this discussion. As mentioned above, the informal gatekeepers she identified have driven her away using what Richard described as ridicule. Ms. Hollender did not ask for this discussion on this blog. So her refusal to participate in the face of the abuse is entirely appropriate.
Some here want it both ways. They want to be uncivil and still get a reasoned response.
===================================================================
Here’s my entire comment,
“Hmmm… Her presentation is supposed to be about “blogs” in general using WUWT as an example? Right?
If she does not expect disagreement, at times expressed in terms aimed at her and her motives rather than her methods, then she doesn’t understand the nature of that which she’s studied.
(If it was not about blogs in general but WUWT in particular, then her bias is showing.)”
So, when is she going to present her findings on Real Climate?
RobertInAz says:
Your comment demonstrates one of the issues that Ms Hollender points out in her talk.
Ms Hollender’s own posts on WUWT demonstrate that the “issue” is more a matter that the lady doth protest too much.
Be a dear and diagram the discursive strategies used here, by the head blogger at “ScrewKyoto:”
“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.