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
JJ
sept 12 12:51
Got to the love the ending of that post — this girl keeps getting hoist with her own petard.
As others have said — the science, in her mind, is settled. The problem is what to do with the contarians.
Before you attack an enemy you study them. She is trying to gain the information that will allow the formulation of a workable battleplan. She is trying to study the contarians “objectively” so that a “realistic” plan can be deveoped. What her paper is screaming to the greens is “Look, I have studied these people! I can tell you how to destroy them!”
Of course, what it all really comes down to is the loopy puesdo-sciences of academic lala land are seeing all that green grant money and are making their big move to grab a share. She is crying — I have value to you “watermelons” (green on the outside, red on the inside). Fund me!”
So we get Post Normal Science — a simple political plan to create a chorus of voices so loud that the voice of science is always drowned out. Chicken Little will shout louder than everyone else and every pretend crisis will lead us further down the road to serfdom.
This little girl doesn’t understand WUWT at all. Its the people who do the science on this site who get the respect. Sure I am the guy who said she has a brain the size of a peanut and maybe that got a few chuckles but if I disappeared tomorrrow nobody would even notice I was gone. And yet what was she focused on? The “abuse” and the “censorship”. Did she discuss even one aspect of the science talked about here? This girl doesn’t understand what this site is about because she truly does not know what science is. She thinks she has an understanding of something that she has not the faintest idea about.
Honey, if you want to destroy WUWT refute the science here. In fact I have a suggestion for you. Why don’t you start asking the big name warmists to post here and join in the debate? Send Michael Mann over. Certainly their deep brains filled with science would quickly put an end to this site! Go ask them to come here and see what they say — and see what happens to your academic future. Frankly honey don’t even think about destroyng WUWT because you don’t have the weapons to do it. Nobody on the warmist side has. You think the science is settled? You do have a brain the size of a peanut.
Eugene WR Gallun
RobertInAz:
Your work on behalf of the Rapid Response Team is failing.
Your latest post at September 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm is especially woeful. It says
More rubbish!
I have tried everything from civility, assistance, insult, and polite reasoned reply. But the only response from the young woman is a blatantly false invitation to “private” conversation.
Nothing this woman has done is defensible. Her only saving grace is that her youth and inexperience make her a susceptible to having been used by others.
And your suggestion (in the empty post you addressed to me) that she has not followed this thread is plain daft.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
September 13, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Each numbered point in turn:
1. You are correct – she has been silenced in that she will not interact in forums in which she is abused. That includes not interacting with specific people.
2. Your analysis is flawed – she has not abused anybody.
3. The contact details are trivially easy for anybody to find. Not posting them here is entirely appropriate given the uncivil behavior demonstrated by some.
4. And yet you expressed frustration by her unwillingness to engage with you. “She did not respond to that attempt at friendly help.” “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.” “She chose to hide from those comments.” “And she has not responded to that.”
richardscourtney says:
September 13, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Thank you for not wasting your time.
RobertInAz;
Do you live in Bullhead Arizona?
Reality check says:
September 13, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Re contact info: If you really cannot find it, then I suggest that you call or email CTPSR and deliver a polite message that you would like to civilly engage with Ms. Hollender on this talk and paper and ask her to send you contact information.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/contact_us.html
I agree that the offer may be insincere. I intend to view the slides and audio and then send her some comments and will find out. If she does engage and gives me permission, I’ll post the contact information here. I think it is premature until I have heard the talk and seen the slides.
Re name calling: I suspect that you and I agree that it has no place in civil discussion. Others here are more into a “rough and tumble” discussion. Interestingly , it appears Ms. Hollender explicitly avoided the denier – skeptic terminology debate by introducing a new (to the climate debate) term: contrarian. I do not see it defined, so its meaning remains open. Hopefully it will be defined in the posted slides.
“Do you live in Bullhead Arizona?”
Phoenix and I do like beer.
RobertInAz says:
September 13, 2012 at 2:49 pm
“Do you live in Bullhead Arizona?”
Phoenix and I do like beer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why do you hate Hummers and people who drive them?
RobertInAz:
It is time to get you to address the serious issue which you have pointedly avoided despite my reminding you of it in subsequent posts. Please note that this issue was explored prior to the presentation by Ms Hollander in a long debate in the WUWT thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/01/wuwt-is-the-focus-of-a-seminar-at-the-university-of-colorado/
When the article which is the subject of this thread appeared then the worst fears discussed in that thread were confirmed.
In my post at September 13, 2012 at 1:03 am I addressed that serious issue head-on. To save you needing to find it I copy it below.
I now expect a proper answer to this serious issue. And I will refute your answer if it is not a proper answer but, instead, is your usual practice of answering a ‘straw man’ you have constructed by selective quotation out of context.
Richard
———-
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
When Fran Hollender chose WUWT, she made a deliberate decision to step into the spotlight.
The way this event and paper were presented, it seems pretty obvious Ms. Hollender has an agenda or an ax to grind. Recent information, including her rush to hide information seems to confirm this.
One of the charms of WUWT is that it routinely exposes bad science, bad logic, bad ideas, bad politics, bad ethics and bad journalism.
Has Ms. Hollender heard about the marketplace of ideas?
When it comes to “few dissenting comments”, I find that the only folks who really have problems are the people who A) can’t make their case, and B), can’t offer any science or hard evidence in support.
In the marketplace of ideas, they don’t make the sale. And they may be laughed at as well. (Gasp!) In this case, Fran Hollender hasn’t made the sale. She has fully earned all the ridicule being tossed in her direction.
The vibe I get from Fran Hollender is that she has a huge ego, a very thin skin, a wide array of double standards and just enough education to think she’s qualified to be one of the people who should be running the world.
RobertInAz 3:36PM
Alright!!! I only came in second in our building chili cookoff competition (made my special no bean chili) but I got first prize for most insults (3) to whats her name. Compensation!
Eugene WR Gallun
“I am marginalizing you and consider you a problem to be solved” is an attack. Period.
There are naievete and language issues to be considered, but *in context* there isn’t much doubt.
I’m sure Ms. Hollender would prefer the discussion be limited to the content of the study rather than examining the assumptions that went into it. I believe the clear and almost unanimous answer to that implied request is “no,” for relatively obvious reasons.
If you tolerate passive-aggressive games, you will get more of them.
We’re not trying to “drive her out of the discussion,” we’re saying “no” to being driven out ourselves.
richardscourtney says:
September 13, 2012 at 2:28 pm
RobertInAz:
“Your work on behalf of the Rapid Response Team is failing.”
Oh cool. Maybe I can post at RealClimate now!
“More rubbish! I have tried everything from civility, assistance, insult, and polite reasoned reply.”
As I pointed out above, you moved from civil assistance to ridicule in a couple of hours whilst Ms. Hollender was sleeping.
“But the only response from the young woman is a blatantly false invitation to “private” conversation.”
You will not know if it is false because your behavior has disqualified you. However, maybe you have secret knowledge.
“Nothing this woman has done is defensible. Her only saving grace is that her youth and inexperience make her a susceptible to having been used by others.”
Studying comments on a public blog and writing a research paper –defensible.
Choosing not to tell the author of the published articles about the study – defensible.
Giving a talk about the contents of her research paper – defensible.
Concluding that WUWT has a hostile environment to contrary opinion – defensible.
“And your suggestion (in the empty post you addressed to me) that she has not followed this thread is plain daft.”
I bow down to your secret knowledge of how Ms. Hollender spends her time. I suspected that she, unlike me, has a life and better things to do than wait for each new comment on this thread. But you know better.
richardscourtney says:
September 13, 2012 at 3:13 pm
“It is time to get you to address the serious issue which you have pointedly avoided despite my reminding you of it in subsequent posts. Please note that this issue was explored prior to the presentation by Ms Hollander in a long debate in the WUWT thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/01/wuwt-is-the-focus-of-a-seminar-at-the-university-of-colorado/”
Recall that I read (or in the case of the extended PNS discussion scanned) every comment in that article to create my original post at September 12, 2012 at 3:36 pm. I remain unclear as to the exact nature of the serious issue you describe.
I did read and respond to your post September 13, 2012 at 1:03 am in my post at September 13, 2012 at 8:47 am. If your comment: “ 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. is the significant issue, than I responded. I will add the observation that men who engage in abusive behavior frequently deny the significance of the behavior and blame the target of their abuse as in “she deserved it.” I note that your response follows this pattern.
Your next comment – “Ms Hollender crossed the Atlantic from Germany to give a presentation on how to “deal with” and to “defeat” “contrarians” reads content into the abstract and/or the talk that eluded me. However, I suppose I must again bow to your secret knowledge.
Your next comment-“ Secretly studying people then making public pronouncements on their collective behaviour is “attacking” them, and they will fight back.” Is nonsensical. Ms Hollender did not study people, she studied what they wrote in a public forum. Her making pronouncements on behavior is no more attacking them than my observation that I scored 12 of 476 comments on the September 1st article as personal attacks on Ms. Hollender. Only a paranoiac would conclude from that observation that she, or I, were attacking people.
And finally, in reference to Ms. Hollender’s work, the davidmhoffer September 12, 2012 at 8:27 pm comment is surreal. Explaining why will take us way off topic. Read this to understand what happened in Bosnia: http://www.amazon.com/Ottoman-Centuries-Lord-Kinross/dp/0688080936/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347580512&sr=1-1&keywords=Ottomans+kinross. Or maybe you can divine what the book says from your secret knowledge source.
Robert in Calgary:
Now we are discussing “vibes” we get from people? No science here any more…..
richardscourtney;
Recalling an earlier thread, I comment now in the same veign (note to Mods, this is not a call to action on your part, just an observation that Richard and a few others will understand and hopefully be amused by)
Myrrh
Greg House
ericgrimsrud
RobertInAz
For the record RobertInAz, my study of Bosnia includes over a thousand years of history prior to the Ottoman Empire all the way to current events. Be carefull who you cross swords with on matters such as this. You clearly are ignorant of the relevance of that particular history to matters at hand, and simpy arrogantly assume that by citing a book that you have read that you can cast aspersions on the opinions of others. You reveal your ignorance, your arrogance, and your continued defense of the indefensible suggests you have an ulterior motive for supporting Ms Hollender that we have not yet divined but have ample reason to suspect.
As I pointed out above, you moved from civil assistance to ridicule in a couple of hours whilst Ms. Hollender was sleeping.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, good point. She’s probably been off line, flying back to Vienna, smugly congratulating herself for getting funding for a free trip across the ocean where she gave a speech she no doubt believes impressed the 13 (thirteen!) people who attended (how much is that per attendee? Doesn’t sound like good value to me?) and is yet unaware that she has wound up looking the fool in front of many thousands at WUWT.
more soylent green! says:
September 13, 2012 at 1:44 pm
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.
redicule: cutting up, making-off-the-wall comments for the fun of it, laughing at ironies, pointing out errors and carrying them to their logical conclusion with a humorous, mischeivous, or dry tone, other general scientific merriment
personal attacks: not acknowledging the superiority of the academic or would be academic
name calling: contrarians saying uncivil things
Dear Reality Check….
“No science here anymore” – that can also apply to her paper.
(snip. Please read the site Policy. – mod)
davidmhoffer says:
September 13, 2012 at 6:15 pm
I have been here on WUWT for a long time. I moved to Arizona in 2010.
“For the record RobertInAz, my study of Bosnia includes over a thousand years of history prior to the Ottoman Empire all the way to current events.” As does mine. Lord Kinross’s history is very on point as to why people in the region hate each other so.
” You clearly are ignorant of the relevance of that particular history to matters at hand, and simpy arrogantly assume that by citing a book that you have read that you can cast aspersions on the opinions of others.” I am simply pointing out that to in any way relate Ms. Hollender’s addition to the climate change discourse to the events in Bosnia is ludicrous.Absent Richard’s secret knowledge, I have no idea where some of the accusations are coming from.
” You reveal your ignorance, your arrogance, and your continued defense of the indefensible suggests you have an ulterior motive for supporting Ms Hollender that we have not yet divined but have ample reason to suspect.”
I am not so much supporting Ms. Hollender as commenting on the lack of civility demonstrated by some commenting here. I believe I have made this point before and this is one reason I rarely read the comments. Of the four points I considered in yesterday’s post, I disagreed with her on three and “gave her a pass” on the other because I believe that 2.5% of the posts being personal attacks is 2.5% too high.
What I have discovered is that those demonstrating boorish behavior are outraged by my temerity in pointing out the obvious. Trying to preserve some tattered remnant of respectability some put words in Ms. Hellender’s mouth and say it’s her fault.
Pathetic.
davidmhoffer says:
September 13, 2012 at 6:26 pm
“She’s probably been off line, flying back to Vienna, smugly congratulating herself for getting funding for a free trip across the ocean….”
Interesting. So you did not pick up on the fact that she now resides in Boulder at CSTPR. I wonder what else you missed?
“Of the four points I considered in yesterday’s post, I disagreed with her on three and “gave her a pass” on the other because I believe that 2.5% of the posts being personal attacks is 2.5% too high. ”
I know I am responding to myself.
In fact, as I formed the intent to do my little analysis, my thought was it would contradict her on all four points. Before analyzing the comments, I thought that her assertion that personal attacks were commonplace was over the top. However, after gathering up all of the comments that I scored as personal attacks and reading them through at one go, I concluded that in this context, 2.5% met the threshold for commonplace. Even with three going to the adorable Mr. Gallun who was angling for an honorable mention in this thread..
Needless to say, I have been bemused by tenor of the responses to my little post.
For anyone wanting to review my original post, here it is.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/11/a-review-of-the-seminar-the-contrarian-discourse-in-the-blogosphere-what-are-blogs-good-for-anyway/#comment-1076802
Dear Ms. Hollender
I was the one who drew attention to your flickr account. This has obviously caused you some alarm.
It was not my intention to intrude into your personal life. It is, as you say, none of my (or anyone else’s at WUWT) business. I apologize for the the alarm I have caused you. Internet stalking is a real phenomenon and not to be dismissed. I urge the moderators of this forum to exclude any irrelevant personal details that anyone attempts to post here, and to inform you by email of those details that are available online.
In my defence, regarding your statement:
This was the statement you chose to place front and centre on your flickr homepage. I did not cherry-pick it or take it out of context.
Your study is of “contrarian” blogs which you say:
As commenter JJ pointed out
I was not seeking “any sort of personal (not scientific) weakness”. I was applying the post-normal method, as described by you and your teachers. I was holding you up to the scrutiny you advocate be applied to others.
Your statement spoke directly to some of the core issues discussed at WUWT. Most here at WUWT see the IPCC as deeply, perhaps iredeemably flawed. The UN is the sponsor of the IPCC. You could have said something like: “one day, you’ll see me talking about major issues at the UN”. But you didn’t. Everybody says things, especially when they are young, that can seem ill considered later in life. Everybody daydreams and fantasizes. But your fantasy was “making major decisions for the UN” which strongly suggests that you favour a greater decision-making role for that body.
I believed your statement to be your attempt to encapsulate your own values and worldview -the things that, as you put it, you “care a great deal about”. As such, I thought it was worth posting it on this thread and not yhink it to be some aspect of your personal life irrelevant to this discussion.
However, in that, I could have been wrong. I did not know, as you later informed us, that you had written it years ago. You used the same pseudonym for your recent posts at WUWT. I would not judge you, or presume to know you, solely on the basis of a single, daydream-like statement.
You had not responded to being outed by Anthony as thedetroiter before I posted. I presume you were identified by your IP address (or similar). I only searched the term thedetroiter to see if I could confirm that you were the same person. Your twitter page was the first result.
When I saw your worldview quote I posted it here, for reasons given above. I did not delve any further. The only reason I posted details like gender, occupation and what appeared to be the name of a relative (in a small list of contacts) was for corroboration. I did not, and would not, reveal any personal details that might compromise your safety, such as a home address.
*****************
Such scrutiny is sometimes warranted, for example, to expose the hypocrisy of eco-evangelists like Al Gore owning multiple, extensive and carbon-profligate dwellings. Examining the careers of smaller actors, is also sometimes warranted, as it can reveal the connections or revolving door between the big players.
For example, Kalee Kreider currently works for Fenton Communications and her current bio states:
Which is surprising as she is quoted as being Al Gore’s spokesperson by Bloomberg.
on March 6, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7li9Nhmhvg0
and Feb 7, 2011
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-07/gore-s-investment-firm-said-to-start-500-million-asian-fund.html
I guess being managing director of Fenton Communications in Washington, D.C. is the same as being Director of Communications for Al Gore and his investment vehicle the Carthage Group.
I realize this must all be confusing for you. But not to worry. You are not Al Gore and do not deserve the same scrutiny. And I do not view you as some kind of villain any more than I do Kalee Kreider.
However, WUWT is not social media or a venue for posting or discussing personal information, and Anthony had every right to draw attention to the thedetroiter comments posted here and to identify you as the author. It is his blog and the content of the comments was relevant to this thread. Not only did they reveal some relevant “values” they also exposed a degree of hypocrisy on your part, which apparently continues:
*****************
I am sure you are aware that the timing of your engagement with WUWT was not conducive to an uncritical reception. It appears to me that, the warmists are losing the battle of public opinion and have re-assessed their tactics. In addition to the constant charges that we are funded by the fossil-fuel industry or duped by its ‘propaganda’ there is now a growing trend (campaign) to portray us, in various ways, as mentally unsound. Some social scientists would have us as slaves to our “social construct”. And non-scientist Chris Mooney declares that our brains are actually (physically) wired differently. The latest example of this smearing was Stephan Lewandowsky’s paper.
Unfortunately, the title doesn’t ‘say it all’. Lewandowsky, attempts to prove that climate skeptics are all conspiracy nuts, by the, new-to-science, Lewandowsky Method of surveying the attitude of a group -skeptics- by not asking them any questions. Instead he gives the questions to some of the skeptics’ most vociferous critics, with the implicit invitation to fake their answers.
So, perhaps you will forgive us if we appear to be overly suspicious of your endeavours, Ms. Hollender.
*****************
I note your close collaboration with Max Boykoff.
Reading Boykoff’s work, I get the distinct impression that he was the one who steered you towards your current study. On, 12 March 2009, Boykoff attended (and was designated reporter of) a seminar of the Copenhagen Climate Congress, consisting of 6 journalists and 8 academics.
It seems clear to me that this was a strategy meeting on advocacy not journalism, to devise “coordinated and concerted efforts”. Boykoff speaks of the media “combating” not “reporting on” climate change.
Participants: Naomi Oreskes, William Freudenburg, Riley Dunlap, Myanna Lahsen and, your own, Maxwell Boykoff, were all cited in Lewandowsky’s paper. And I could cite other articles and papers where they cite each other.
From the recent work of Lewandowsky and others it is becoming increasingly clear what kind of “coordinated and concerted efforts” they had in mind -character assassination of climate-skeptics as a group. An effort you now find yourself drawn into.
*****************
I hope you are reassured that I endeavour to research a subject before speaking about it and try to avoid making assumptions about people based on insufficient evidence. I encourage you to do the same.
One of your thedetroiter comments asserts:
You appear to assume that because someone worked for an oil company, “improving their public image”, it is then inconceivable that they could also care for the environment.
Fritz Vahrenholt’s Wikipedia page (which, of course, may not be accurate) states that he “started his professional career at the federal Umweltbundesamt (environmental protection agency)” he was “CEO of the wind turbine company REpower Systems AG” from 2001 to 2007. [See also DirkH’s comments Sep. 12, 2012 at 11:21 and 12:07 am]. Turbines, environmental protection -not quite the stereotype you had in mind.
The world is not oil-black and white.
Jano Cabrera, ran Carthage Group Communications, which is presumably some kind of offshoot of Al Gore’s Carthage Group, as Cabrera was also Gore’s spokesman from 1998 to 2002.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jano-cabrera/b/218/907
Cabrera now works for the PR firm Burson-Marsteller. Some might be surprised that someone so close to the patron saint of global warming should join such a firm, as they too have been charged with “improving” the “public image” of an oil company.
One month later Thomas J. Mosser, an executive of Burson-Marsteller, was killed by a mail bomb sent to his home by an attendee of that meeting, because as the bomber later explained Mosser’s employer “helped Exxon clean up its public image after the Exxon Valdez incident”. His name was Theodore Kaczynski, otherwise known as, the Unabomber.
I am not, in any way, comparing you to the Unabomber, Ms. Hollender. You are not like the Unabomber. Neither are we skeptics the collection of cranks, contrarians and conspiracists that the likes of Lewandowsky and Mooney would have you believe. Stigmatizing and stereotyping people will not get you the rapprochement you profess to seek. You will further alienate more than just skeptic bloggers and their readership. And it can have unforeseen consequences.
When the Heartland Institute placed an ad on a billboard with a picture of Kaczynski and the caption “I still believe in global warming. Do you?” they were thoroughly condemned by the press and by the climate-skeptic community. The ad was taken down, shortly after.
I do not see the affair as a stain on the skeptic community. Heartland did something wrong and stupid and the skeptic community immediately told them it was wrong and stupid. They did the right thing. Unfortunately, the response of the majority of the warmist community to Peter Gleick’s wrongheaded stupidity was somewhat different.
A group of like-minded academics and journalists have embarked on a campaign fundamentally the same as the Unabomber billboard.
Do the right thing. Disassociate yourself from this.
Good luck with your thesis.
Yours respectfully
David Ross
P.S. Whatever else you may think of us or the treatment you have received here, you cannot complain that we have not provided you with enough material.
going back and picking up some responses to my post(s) that I missed the first time through.
davidmhoffer says:
September 12, 2012 at 8:34 pm
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What kind of logic allows a commenter to hijack my scoring criteria used for my analysis and insist that I apply their criteria? We’ve now arrived at a very strange world where I can establish and apply relatively straightforward criteria for what constitutes an insult and folks come along and demand that the criteria be reworked to satisfy their preferences.
James Allison says:
September 12, 2012 at 8:49 pm
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think you are referring to this passage – it keeps cropping up in the discussion. Note that it is in the abstract but I did not see it in the description of the talk above. I look forward to seeing the slides.
“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.”
I see this passage as providing some context for her work. I do not see it as “Ms Hollender crossed the Atlantic from Germany to give a presentation on how to “deal with” and to “defeat” “contrarians”. ” The review of her presentation above indicates that the previous statement has no basis in reality unless significant content was missed.
Parsing the passage that has some in a tizzy:
“”In the context of climate change, one question has arisen from recent events: what to do with the contrarians? “. This is unremarkable, every true believer wants to figure out what to do with the non-believers. I *(and hopefully many of us) want to figure out what to do with the true believers. This statement is neither a threat nor an attack. It is a statement of fact about the state of the discourse between true believers and “non-believers” (or skeptics or contrarians).
“Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow…” well, we know that those folk are steadily decreasing in number as the intellectual bankruptcy of the true-believer position becomes increasing obvious to society at large. Again, a simple statement of fact that implies no threat or attack.
“…while others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them.” This is clearly the most inflammatory phrase because she inserts science where she should have inserted true-believer or CAGW proponent. Her failure here is implying that contrarians do not include scientists or are somehow not-science. This obvious poor phrasing in the abstract engendered remarkable vitriol. This error can make the phrase appear to be a putdown. I do not believe that was her intent, but since I do not have secret knowledge, I cannot know that it was not her intent. This topic did not appear to be covered in her subsequent talk.
davidmhoffer says:
September 12, 2012 at 6:28 pm
“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.”
I missed much of this content in the abstract and the talk.
“..dismissing out of hand the opinions of an entire group of people..” so if she had used the term skeptics instead of contrarians would she have dismissed out hand those opinions. Contrarian as an adjective has a honorable history as in contrarian investor.
“..and consludes with a strategy to completely marginalize them ” must refer to “..there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.” as this is the only action recommendation in the abstract. While I consider the abstract to be poorly written, I fail to discern Ms. Hollender’s strategy to marginalize us.
“..in order to no longer consider their objections at all so that the conversation can be exclusively about mitigation strategies” while I agree that this is what the true believers want to achieve, I fail to see where this is mentioned in Ms. Hollender’s abstract or talk.
But then, I don’t have secret knowledge about what Ms. Hollender was really saying.