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
David Ross says:
September 13, 2012 at 7:21 pm ……….
=====================================
Thank you for taking the time to put forth such a patient and thoughtful response to Ms Detroit. I hope she heeds your advice.
What kind of logic allows a commenter to hijack my scoring criteria used for my analysis and insist that I apply their criteria?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The kind of logic that says when a person says something insulting, and then follows it up by explicitly saying it was intended to be insulting, that it was an insult.
You’ve brought a definition to a food fight. You’ve got egg dripping down your face and all you’ve got to say for yourself is that by your definition, there’s no egg.
RobertInAz says:
going back and picking up some responses to my post(s) that I missed the first time through.
Keep after it. You have yet missed a spot.
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.
It is for that very reason quite remarkable, given the author’s simultaneous assertion that she is without bias, does not sit in a corner, refuses to takes sides, etc. Those statements are used to support her claims of posessing “objectivity” and respecting “ethical grounds”. True believer Hollender is either self-deceptive, lying, or both.
Perhaps you are willing to admit the problem, now that you have had a hand in defining it ever so clearly.
RobertInAz says:
September 13, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Oh I’ve got it now. Skeptical climate scientists devote their time on blogs like CA and WUWT etc pointing out the cracks, fissures and sometimes gaping holes in orthodox (the Teams) climate science research while the enviro Believers spend their time wondering what to do with the skeptical scientists – ignore them or fight them. Meanwhile you come out in support of these Believers. Cheers for the elucidation.
I enjoy this blog and I admire the fact that it accommodates it’s critics, not only in the open ‘comments’ but in the main body of the blog.
I must say I find some of the threads – specifically those related to personalities and inter-blog squabbles – and most particularly the comments that accompany them – rather dispiriting.
I don’t believe that the ‘truth’ (insofar as such a thing exists in science) is uncovered through the raking over of he-said-she-said blogging and counter-blogging, nor from tendentious special pleading. Rather, I think that it reveals itself through the totality of evidence, dispassionately presented and properly exposed to rational criticism.
Accordingly, I would urge contributors to this site to take the long view – and the moral high ground. Expose the errors, by all means, but don’t (unnecessarily) draw inferences of personal motives and don’t indulge in personal remarks or (worst of all) gloating and triumphalism: it lowers the tone and therefore credence of the discourse and, I hesitate to say, the integrity of this blog.
This is the first time I have commented. it may be the last. My final plea is that others show similar restraint, exercise prudent reticence and allow the (generally) high-quality content of this blog to speak for itself, whenever possible.
Right. I’ll shut up now.
RobertInAz says:
“”In the context of climate change, one question has arisen from recent events: what to do with the contrarians? “.
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).
Phrased from the viewpoint of the True believer.
“Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow 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.
She said what she meant. Her phrasing is not random. It discloses how she conceptualizes her position, and the intended function of her statements and her work. A more famous Viennese was so fond of pointing out that type of “slip” that it became eponymous. Discourse analysis ought to be able to discern it as well, if more laborously. The problem with these
socialpseudo-science types, is that they ought to be aiming their tools at a mirror.That statement framing her research demonstrates not only her own position, but also delineates the echo chamber in which she operates. The formulation of her research problem is conceptualized entirely from like minds, and the presentation of her results is directed to same. Some of them consider skeptics a sideshow, others of them think it is science’s responsibility to fight skeptics, the only question amongst any of them is how to accomplish the disposal problem: “what to do with the” skeptics. None of them consider skeptic’s viewpoints valuable, and none of them conceives of a populated set at the intersection of “skeptic” and “science”.
This is extremely disrespectful, in the manner that a cognitive psychologist would describe as “dehumanizing” if he observed it practiced by an “other” (they rarely look at their friends through those lenses). The vitriol this engendered in Ms Hollender’s indignant lab rats is actually unremarkable in the context that it was very much deserved.
RobertInAz:
I suggest you compare your post at September 13, 2012 at 8:25 pm to the considered and rational post from David Ross at September 13, 2012 at 7:21 pm.
Your post at elevates sophistry to a high art.
Your excuses each amounts to your saying, “I think she meant other than she is reported to have said”.
That does not wash, and your final paragraph makes it is clear you know it doesn’t.
It could be thought that giving Ms Hollender her ‘5 minutes of fame’ is pointless because she is merely an immature student whose associations clearly suggest she has been misled. But that thought would be an error.
We who question the AGW-hypothesis have been subjected to decades of attacks of all kinds; web sites have been established with the sole purpose of smearing and defaming us, Tim Ball is defending against spurious litigation, I have had two computer systems destroyed and I notice Jo Nova is now getting similar treatment, etc.. All this has been conducted by those whom you call “believers” in AGW.
Those attacks have not had the desired success. The evidence and arguments we present are not being suppressed despite the “believers” having distorted the peer review process and having usurped Executives of Academies. Importantly, the political objectives of the “believers” stalled at Copenhagen and politicians are retreating from imposition of those objectives.
So, the “believers” have changed tack. No longer is it sufficient to attack and demean individuals. Now they attempt to portray all heretics to their belief as being
(a) malign
e.g. Gleik’s deception theft, and forgery attempting to ‘prove’ the Heartland Institute is operated to subvert education
(b) nutters and cranks
e.g. Lewandowsky’s fake paper
(c) a problem to be “dealt with”
e.g. Hollender’s thesis.
Point (c) crosses an unacceptable line. History repeatedly shows there are many problems with assessing people of a particular religion, political view, nation or race as needing to be “dealt with”. Those problems have many precedents and they are all bad. “Something wicked that way comes”.
Ms Hollender’s youth,inexperience and associations suggest she was used as a ‘stalking horse’ to test the marginalising of the heretics as a group. But her being a pawn is no reason to treat her lightly; Brownshirts were not leaders in their movement but their activities were a necessary precursor to that movement’s success.
Ms Hollender deserves nothing except ridicule and contempt. And it is in the interest of everybody that she gets a lot of it.
Richard
Moderators:
I have made a post that seems to have gone in the ‘bin’. I would appreciate its retrieval.
Richard
Rescuec & posted,
(rescued & posted, richard. – mod)
Mod:
Thankyou for the “rescue”.
You guys are brilliant. I am often in awe of the diligence, restraint and wisdom of WUWT moderators. And I take this opportunity to thank all of you for all of it. Thankyou on behalf of myself and countless others.
Richard
RobertInAz, I see what you’re trying to say (ie act like grown ups and stop being needlessly mean to the young person, it makes us look bad) but you’re wrong in trying to make her work less inflammatory than it is. “The contrarian discourse in the blogosphere–what are blogs good for anyway?” The title contains ‘contrarian’ which suggests a minority position and/or arguing for the sake of it. ‘What are blogs good for anyway?’ suggests that WUWT is worthless but has some redeeming features. While it does contain truths about WUWT and sceptic blog posters, it was presented from the viewpoint of a warmist as demonstrated by the nosy but accurate people who investigated Ms Hollender. Like studying anything, Franziska should have made sure she was safe from the beasties before she started poking them with a stick.
Ironically the main body of the talk had nothing to do with the heading. It was trying to say that WUWT was involved in PNS and would be more effective if it wasn’t quite so much like a blog. From my point of view it failed to come to any interesting conclusions because it didn’t examine the nuances that have to balance popularity with a focus on science. WUWT acts as the engine that fuels the more refined blogs that focus more closely on the science and peer review. To do that she would have had to do far more research than she did.
And the rest of you – stop arguing about whether or not posts were insulting or not, you come over as a right bunch of contrarians 😉
TinyCO2:
re your post at September 14, 2012 at 2:00 am.
I am often surprised at people who cannot see ‘the elephant in the room’.
Please read my post at September 14, 2012 at 1:12 am.
Richard
From the introduction:
[bold face mine]
I think the above excerpt revels quite a lot, but perhaps I’m reading too much into Ms. Hollender’s motivations. Instead, let’s address: What to do with the contrarians?
The answer is quite simple: Show us your work!
Show us the data. Show us how and why the data was adjusted. Justify your answers, just as if you were having to defend a thesis (which is exactly what should and must be done). Show us how you derived at the answers. Show us that the computer models work the way the real climate works. Explain how the lack of an tropospheric hotspot doesn’t falsify GW theory. (Simply explain how GW theory can get so many predictions wrong, but still be right.) Explain how the Medieval Climate Optimum had a more pleasant climate than the Little Ice Age that followed, when that contradicts AGW theory. Show us the computer code used for the climate models.
Climate scientists refuse to do all of the above. Instead, they ridicule and denigrate us. They justify their actions using post-normal-science and the precautionary principle. They engage in media blitzes instead of scientific debates. They delete our questions and objections from their blogs. They conspire to hide their correspondence from Freedom of Information Act requests.
If you’re still following this discussion, Ms. Hollender, I hope that you can see that you are your seminar are part of the problem. Climate science can’t or won’t answer our most basic questions and you appear to be running interference for them.
As to insults and derogatory comments, this blog is remarkably well-behaved in this regard. Obviously, ad hominems such as references to your brain size or psycho-active medications are just that, ad hominems, and are completely uncalled for. I even admit to having some fun at your expense myself, simply because of your apparent lack of self-awareness and the seemingly low quality of work now required to earn and advanced degree in this country. The former you can work on, the latter is obviously not your fault.
I’d just like to underscore part of Eugene’s post above:
“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!”
Anthony tends to present and analyze a good number of current studies on this blog and the commenters comment on his openings and often expand on them. As far as I’m aware, WUWT does not engage in simple total censorship of opposing views (I appreciate the fact that when the moderators’ scissors DO come into play with any reasonable posting it seems to always be done with a note that they’ve snipped and a note as to why… although there’s no way to really *know* that for sure.)
So Eugene’s point seems solid: if the WUWT folks truly WERE “cranks” etc, it would be a simple matter to show them up simply by coming here and dissecting their arguments. I do it all the time in the smoking-ban discussions on news boards and if the Antismokers ran any open discussion blogs like this one (Heh, they know better!) they’d quickly find their claims and arguments ripped to shreds. Those on the weak side of a scientific discussion can’t afford to offer a level playing field for discussion, and if they happen to have the advantage of commanding the public microphone by virtue of their money or simply through their established position or ability to play the various emotive “cards” (race, children, oppressed workers, evil big companies, etc) in their favor they certainly do NOT want to give their opposition any chance at sharing that microphone.
I haven’t explored the Climate Change blogs much, but I’ve found WUWT interesting and recently got pulled into a discussion with Simon Chapman et al over on Watching The Deniers. I’m curious: why isn’t there more interaction between the communities on the blogs? My sympathies lie with WUWT in terms of the science I’ve seen (though I haven’t examined it in any real depth) so why aren’t the folks here taking the arguments to the opposition boards? Or do you claim that they are all strictly censored? (And if so, do they make the same claim about you? — And again, if so, anyone have any ideas how to resolve those claims?)
I can see why the main moderators might not board hop: I can’t see how Anthony finds enough time in a day just to do what he does here, and the situation may be the same on the other side — but the same isn’t true for all the posters. And from what I’ve seen here the posters, at least WUWT’s posters, are generally scientifically literate enough that I’d expect them to feel comfortable on an enemy battlefield.
So, excellent point Eugene! If the warmers REALLY wanted to destroy the contrarians and thought they could… then why DON’T they show up and “refute the science here”? (And vice-versa of course, if it’s not already being done.)
– MJM
Franziska Hollender,
On this thread you were specifically individualized based on both your publically available info on the Internet and your seminar statements.
You, in your seminar, subjectivity stereotyped thousands of WUWT participants with irrationally perjoritive terminology.
You should apologize to WUWT if you are in procession of some residual amount of professional intellectual integrity.
You do not possess the intellectual right of way because you speak from academia, please yield to oncoming WUWT intellectual traffic that you, by your publicly available statements, have earned. Enjoy the free marketplace of ideas.
Intellectually, I find your argument in your seminar invalidated by your uncritical endorsement of many false premises (many of them hidden). HOWEVER, this assessment is based on the seminar attendee reports, when I see the actual recording of your seminar I will reassess my findings.
John
michaeljmcfadden:
At September 14, 2012 at 7:46 am you ask
Many of us have tried to post at warmist blogs but we get censored then banned: in the case of RC, permanently banned. Willis is permanently banned, so am I, and so are very many others.
Please do not take my word for this. Try it for yourself. Choose a technical subject (e.g. carbon cycle, polar ice, climate sensitivity, etc.) on which you are knowledgeable and post polite but sceptic comments or questions on a warmist blog. See what happens for yourself.
Richard
michaeljmcfadden;
(And vice-versa of course, if it’s not already being done.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
For several years I did exactly that. When I made a good point, my comment just disappeared. When I asked a tough question, it was edited such that the question appeared foolish. If I presented data that proved a warmists position wrong, it was deleted. My experience is not unique. I tried for two years to have a rational discussion on warmists sites and gave up. In answer to your question, debate regarding the science, both sides of it, rages on this and other skeptic blogs. If there is a warmist blog that allows an opposing voice to present their arguments intact, unedited, without deletion and even modification to alter the meaning of valid comments, I challenge you to find it.
David Ross says:
September 13, 2012 at 7:21 pm
===============
Excellent comment.
Now as far as “what to do with the contrarians” perhaps Ms Hollender will learn to respect the so-called contrarians. I would venture to say that she may be a bit more objective in any future “research” as her recent attempt has received peer review in a forum of her choosing. It unequivocally has been sent back for a rewrite.
David and Richard, thanks for the responses/insights: I kind of suspected this was what was going on, but, as noted, I haven’t really had time to follow this issue in enough depth to know. A suggestion however as far as documenting future censorship: try iCyte.com
If you go to:
http://www.icyte.com/saved/www.smokefreedc.org/539434
you will see an example of how it can be useful: if you click on the little blue (S) in the upper right it will take you to the current site: you can see how the comments were later edited by the webmeister. I’ve found the tool very useful for safeguarding things that I expect might be wiped or for making a record of comments that were “in moderation” and that I expected might be disappeared. The Wayback Machine (archive.org I believe) is useful for more stable web pages with a history but I don’t think it records comments.
– MJM
michaeljmcfadden;
A suggestion however as far as documenting future censorship: try iCyte.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m aware of those tools and others, and a simple screen capture is another easy way to document what was said.
That said, I’ve no need of those tools because I exeprienced first hand, countless times, the behaviour that I describe. If I needed to “prove” it to someone else, yes I could do that. But I don’t need to prove it to myself. Could I put in the time and effort to “prove” it to you? The far better proof is for you to experience it for yourself. You can find countless similar stories to my own on various skeptic blogs, you can even find threads devoted entirely to specific examples. But until you experience it for yourself, there will always be an element of doubt in your mind that perhaps, these examples are somehow not fairly represented or even fabricated. So my recommendation is to learn the basic physics and related science involved, jump into a thread at RealClimate, or Open Mind, or Skeptical Science, and ask a really tough questions raises a real issue with the topic at hand.
Better that you prove it to yourself for it will leave no doubt in your mind at all.
Michaeljmcfadden:
In a post addressed to you at September 14, 2012 at 10:07 am davidmhoffer says to you
His recommendation presupposes that you need “to learn the basics” and that may be right. So, I intend no offence by saying I am willing to offer a few questions you may want to use in your attempt to “prove it for yourself”.
As an example, I offer this one.
In a paper he published in 2007, Kiehl says,
“One curious aspect of this result is that it is also well known that the same models that agree in simulating the anomaly in surface air temperature differ significantly in their predicted climate sensitivity. The cited range in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in equilibrium sensitivity.
The question is: if climate models differ by a factor of 2 to 3 in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy.”
(ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).
And his paper answers that question saying,
“”These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity.”
Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen at
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png ]
Clearly, each model is emulating a different climate system.
So, I would welcome
(a) an explanation of how any except at most one of the climate models can project future climate when they differ so greatly in their basic parameters
and
(b) how can it be assumed that even this wide range of different modelled climate systems includes the climate system of the real Earth.
Richard
Richard,
That’s an excellent one. Here’s one of my favourites.
How can there be certainty about the accuracy of climate models given that the IPCC, in their own report on radiative forcing, rank their own understanding of the various factors via a metric known as the LOSU (Level of Scientific Understanding) as follows:
Long Lived GHG’s High
Stratospheric Ozone Medium
Tropospheric Ozone Medium
Stratospheric Water Vapour from CH4 Low
Direct Aerosol Medium to Low
Surface albedo Low
Persistan linear contrails Low
Solar Irradiance Low
Volcanic Aerosol Low
Strat. Wtr Vapour from other than CH4 Very Low
Trop Wtr Vaoour from irrigation Very Low
Aviation Induce Very Low
Cosmic Rays Very Low
Other surface effects Very Low
Hey, that’s not my list, nor is it my analysis of the models, this is the IPCC’s own assessment of their own science! Check for yourself:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html
So, given that of the 14 categories affecting radiative forcing, the IPCC claims to have a high level of understanding of…. jus one. And a Low or Very Low understanding of TEN of the fourteen. That being the case, how can the models themselves be considered, using the same rating system of “Level of Scientific Understanding” be rated as anything other than Low to Very Low?
Further, since the debate centers not on the LLGHG’s and their role in radiative forcing, but on the feedbacks themselves, which are comprised ENTIRELY from the rest of the list, how can certainty about feedback estimates be rated anything other than Very Low?
Someday we ought to make a list of these and post them all in one place for people to use.
davidmhoffer:
Concerning questions for putting to warmists, at September 14, 2012 at 3:26 pm you suggest,
“Someday we ought to make a list of these and post them all in one place for people to use.”
I agree. Perhaps Anthony would like to set up a page for it?
Richard
richardscourtney September 14, 2012 at 5:08 am
Actually I do see the elephant, I just don’t think it’s as big as you do.
If Ms Hollender is reading the comments here, she’s been subjected to enough ideas to give her a hundred theses. However I doubt she’ll read more than a few and misinterpret those, in part because she will feel (rightly) attacked. She clearly hadn’t learnt enough to know that sceptics can be quite grumpy when provoked and maybe didn’t even realise that she was being so provocative.
Warmists say of sceptics that there is no amount of evidence that would persuade us. The same should be said of warmists. There is a mass of evidence to indicate that most active sceptics are self funded, self determined individuals with an informed opinion and yet active warmists believe it all to be an oil funded conspiracy, to be fought. They’re fighting ghosts. Those evil, moustache twirling, oil rich monsters don’t exist, so all that effort and vitriol is a waste or energy. When they’re being fairer they like to think we’re actually just led astray by charismatic super intelligent fraudsters. Sigh. They have to convince themselves of that or they’d have to face up to the unpalatable truth that they’re just not very convincing.
Of course individuals are vulnerable in this stupid fight. Jobs are lost, money is wasted, web sites are hacked and eventually someone is going to get killed but that’s the nature of many subjects discussed over the internet. Ms Hollender and those like her are not a genuine threat to anyone’s safety because they are trying to isolate scepticism as an aberration but WE ARE NOT ALONE. The majority of people are practicing or closet sceptics. When an ad hominen argument is ventured, non vocal sceptics think ‘if that doesn’t represent me, what else are they wrong about?’
Smearing by association only works on small groups and individuals. It’s why the Una bomber posters were so badly conceived.
Ms Hollender’s and Lewandowsky’s efforts don’t offend me because they’re insulting but because they’re rubbish. They serve no purpose than to make true believers feel better about themselves. Someone truly concerned about inaction against CO2 should be worrying why believers don’t act, not what makes sceptics tick. However their work fits beautifully amongst the howlers of climate science ie looking for answers in all the wrong places because they’ve made their minds up and reject any conflicting evidence. There’s another comparison – much of the work is done at a desk instead of on the ground.
TinyCO2: Your comment ‘much of the work is done at a desk instead of on the ground’ is probably right.
Alexander Chikmaryov, head of a remote Arctic meteorological research station 500 kilometres inside the Arctic Circle at Marresale on the Kara Sea coast didn’t see Russia as being under threat from global warming, commenting that ‘global warming is something invented by people who spend far too much time indoors’ – see p36 of the March 2010 issue of ‘Geographical’ – the magazine of the Royal Geographical Society published in the UK.
In the same article, another scientist is cautious about the link between the permafrost and global warming, saying: ‘Permafrost has a life of its own and is very complex. We need to know more about permafrost in Northwestern Siberia, and indeed the rest of the Arctic region before we can make such claims.’
As mentioned above, here was the tell: “It is essential to act sooner than later.” Urge to act arises only from conviction.