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
Post normal science as I deduce it from the definitions in this blog, has nothing to do with science but with what one wants. Science in a way is boring because is involves the counting of “beans”, on the other hand if the “beans” counting fits, or leads to something, it may become (very) exciting.
Reading W. Jackson Davis’ vetted account of Hollender’s presentation (notwithstanding some “red flag”** alerts therein) initially led me to think that Anthony’s criticism might have been somewhat on the harsh side. Particularly in light of the Lewspew™ we’ve seen of late.
** First red flag for me was Hollender’s:
Whatever might have happened to the third option, I wondered. Oh, well, I said to myself, perhaps she’s been inordinately influenced (unbeknownst to her) by so much MSM oft recycled articulation of this particular alarmist PR meme.
As a person with an open mind, who is not as familiar with the the current “social science” jargon as she probably should be, I was prepared to grant her some leeway for her (somewhat naïve and yet another red flag):
What “field” might this be, I wondered. Oh, well, this is only a master’s thesis … probably good enough for citation in the IPCC’s AR5, but as a small-scale “case-study” not to be taken seriously as a representation of … well … anything!
Why am I reading this again, I asked myself. “Self,” I said, “Compare this with the Lewspew™ we’ve seen of late – and L’s manifestations of multitudinous machinations of Machiavellian madness.”
With the benefit of hindsight, I’ve come to the conclusion that “relativity” is a bummer that can lead one to granting a modicum of credit where further revelations strongly suggest it was never due.
Anthony, please accept my apologies.
thedetroiter
“Next time maybe just enjoy the naked ladies and move on.”
Would she class her own words as vitriol. I don’t. I read them as humor, in the same way as the peanut and Zoloft comments were jokes.
Analysis of only one blog, using only 0.09% of posts, unsubstantiated accusations of censorship (“deleted by the site manager”) and a desire that comments should be controlled (“there is no formal mechanism to keep the comments on track.”), shows a very narrow thought process.
A quick search on Google reveals two blogs connected to the name ‘thedetroiter’.
http://thedetroiter.wordpress.com/about/
http://screwkyoto.wordpress.com/about/
Are they perhaps connected to our Fran? Would they make a good subject for analysis?
I read it the same way, and was about to make the same comment. But you came first.
This post seems to be based on a fundamental misconception of the nature of science. Science is not a social construct any more than maths is a social construct. You cannot have a group of people sit in a room and come up with a new consensus that 2+2=5. What people think, the actual social context, does not change the evidence. interpretation is a social construct, the evidence is not. Science is a methodology. The social construct is the acceptance and use of that methodology. Normal and post normal refer to a philosophical change (affecting all subjects) away from objectivity and toward subjectivity. As science is an objective methodology it doesn’t fit this description. Science is evidence based. post normal “science” is subjectivity based … they are incompatible.
There are people who try to as objective as they can but are forced by the lack of evidence and testability to be subjective. But because only that which is objective is “science”, the more and more you include subjective assessments, the less if becomes science. In reality science or total objectivity is a goal rather than something that can be achieved, but as the goal of science is to be objective and “post normal” in effect means “subjective”, you cannot have “Post normal” science any more than you can have “touchy feely maths”.
Science works because advocates focus on objective measurements and testable hypothesis. Both of these allow reproducibility and largely remove or allow verification of observer bias.
Post normal “science” is really just a con trick to allow the legitimisation of observer bias. And climate academia is the epiphany of what you get when you have post normal “science”… a subject devoid of much if any real concrete data, where the quality of data is ignored, where verification is almost frowned upon, where all criticism is considered with contempt and where almost everything stemming from that rotten cesspit is observer bias.
All observers are biased, but the aim of science is to remove that bias. Post normal science says: “observer bias is fine because its a normal social construct of an imperfect society and it’s not possible to be free from observer bias so it should be the goal to be free from it”.
All observers are biased, I am biased, and my bias is that when academics get off their back sides and stop trying to create baseless social & philosophical constructs to rationalise their own prejudices and start doing the job they are paid to do: good quality data used to construct verifiable hypothesis that work in practice not as sound bites after the latest flood, drought, snowstorm, heatwave, …. then you will have science people can trust.
Hollender seems to think we “contrarians” are a pretty hostile bunch, viciously attacking, with our wacky notions like “post-normal” science being nothing but a load of neo-Marxist claptrap.
REALLY?
Culture, Politics, and Climate Change
AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER
SEPTEMBER 13-15, 2012
http://www.climateculturepolitics.com/program/
You can access a pdf of the final program by clicking on the cover image below.
http://www.climateculturepolitics.com/docs/CPCCONLINEProgramFinal.pdf
Franziska Hollender is listed as a speaker on p.31
And on p.27 under “Featured Speakers & Presenters”
p.27
Craig Rosebraugh
Who is Craig Rosebraugh?
Contrast the above with the whitewashed bio of Rosebraugh presented in the conference brochure.
I find it inconceivable that the conference organizers, each of whom is involved with environmental journalism, could be unaware of the nature Rosebraugh’s past and current activities. Excluding that information from the brochure is not the action of honest journalists.
As long as people like Rosebraugh keep getting invited to their conferences, my opinion of Ms. Hollender and other “post-normalists” will not change.
——————
Afterthought
Ms. Hollender, you are young and possibly naive. I am older and probably more cynical. Were you aware of Craig Rosebraugh’s past? If you were not aware, how do you view his attendance at the conference? Does it trouble you in any way?
“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. ”
She said that? She suggests stopping to discuss the science basis, and advance the discourse by changing how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.
Excuse me, I switch to German for a moment.
Franziska Hollender, wenn Sie das hier lesen:
Wir lesen Sie. Wir verstehen, was Sie bezwecken. Sie sind eine Ideologin, keine Wissenschaftlerin.
Wir werden Ihren Untergang geniessen.
First paragraph, first sentence.
“I did this study because this “mediated” society [one blanketed with diverse media] calls the integrity of science into question.”
Fell at the first fence. Strawman up & the rest is just knocking it down. A Masters is obviously a cakewalk nowadays. In passing, that’s not the accepted definition of “mediated”, but wtf …
Pointman
As in the impartial Franziska Hollender that said;
“Climate change is not something to ‘believe’ in, it’s a fact. Why laypeople always try to argue on the science, I’ll never understand. It hasn’t been a scientific issue for quite a while, what remains is a political issue…
Is this you Ms Hollender? Comment on Jan 16?
http://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=279399835447659&id=132274126826898&_ft_a=132274126826898&_ft_tf=279399835447659&_ft_tpi=132274126826898&_ft_ti=22&_ft_fth=30866372050415eb&_ft_time_ft=1327915542&_ft_mf_objid=279399835447659
Come on, guys, this is just student work. And she’s bound to have been influenced the indoctrination prevalent in Europe. It’s probably taking her a while to recover from the shock of seeing that other views are possible. I guess she was surprised to find the anti-AGW case put so clearly and convincingly, but didn’t want to upset her teachers by saying so.
I actually think some parts of it are quite good, e.g.:
‘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.’
Putting it like that seems to me to be accurate, as things should be, and an acknowledgment of the key role played by WUWT & other blogs.
I know there’s other stuff in the assignment which is dodgy, but so there is in all or most pieces of student work I get to mark.
I think the analyses generally was pretty balanced and her characterisation of WUWT pretty accurate, notwithstanding Anthony’s valid points in response.
I also think it was a worthy thing to have attempted, and as good a start as could have been hoped for. I wonder what Judith Curry would make of this – this is an area of great interest to her.
davidmhoffer said:
September 11, 2012 at 11:22 pm
“In the context of climate change, one question has arisen from recent events: what to do with the contrarians?”
————————————–
That bothered me too.
She goes on to say: “Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them.”
Only two possibilities, huh? And both negative.
In her thedetroiter guise, she wrote: “Before using a BILD article as a basis for an argument, [think] again. Next time maybe just enjoy the naked ladies and move on.”
I tried, but bildblog is down 🙁
Re Franziska’s undercover 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.”
This is the typical meme brought forward by German leftists, akin to US Fox News bashing. It should be pointed out that BILD brought an interview with Fritz Vahrenholt (author of Die Kalte Sonne) before Franziska’s cherished Der Spiegel (German equivalent to the NYT) did.
So, Franziska, can we get your apology now?
Anthony, Mods
I don’t think I used any bad words, but my http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/11/a-review-of-the-seminar-the-contrarian-discourse-in-the-blogosphere-what-are-blogs-good-for-anyway/#comment-1076321 [September 11, 2012 at 11:34 pm] seems to be stuck in moderation
Several posts later than mine have have appeared. I know you’re all busy and many thanks for all you do, but could you check the spam-trap?!
Thanks
Hilary
REPLY: I don’t see anything – Anthony
“The precautionary principle is important–it is essential to act sooner than later.”
That’s not a sound basis for making a decision and reveals a lack of objectivity. Should I not eat since my food may have been poisoned? Risk analysis, Cost/Benefit analysis, and Option Evaluations are sound bases for making decisions. In Emergency Management the “Do Nothing” option is always evaluated; I contend that has yet to be seriously evaluated by academia.
“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.”
I am completely baffled by what she said. It sounds a lot like the warmist propaganda that their only problem is communicating with the “deniers.” If the science basis is not important, why are we even discussing CAGW? It’s a lot easier simply to dismiss it out of hand.
Post normal science #pocket-liner …
Richard Phillips says:
September 12, 2012 at 12:00 am
“Come on, guys, this is just student work. And she’s bound to have been influenced the indoctrination prevalent in Europe.”
I’m a native German and I can tell you that leftism/environmentalism was virulent since my school days in the 70ies. The flawed reasoning and screaming of the leftists left me unimpressed since I was a teenager. I deeply mistrusted them; they were the obvious examples of community organizing, collectivists by nature, incapable of developing an idea on their own.
So, it IS possible to grow up and study in Europe without being impressed by the weird movements around you, ESPECIALLY because you get told in school in Germany at least how easily the Naz1s agitated the people.
Uncritical thinkers are uncritical thinkers and that’s that, and Franziska is one of them. No excuses for following the pied piper (A GERMAN fairytale that ALSO should have told her SOMETHING.)
“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.”
There’s a lot of good commentary, color and critical, otherwise. But the passage quoted here sums up the entire quandry rather nicely. Worth noting is that a ‘scientific consensus’ is simply a paradigm qua Kuhn. That is, it is a purely philosophical position as there’s certainly no need for consensus on experiments. You simply go out and replicate them; belief is wholly unnecessary.
Which puts a rather fine point on the clip-art line “… forcing science to prove its reliability and integrity over and over again.” For we are not speaking of science as science to prove it reliability and integrity. We are speaking of Philosophy, called science for rhetorical reasons, to prove it’s reliability and integrity.
And this is why there are two different sets of conversations. In the one there is a discussion of epistemic issues and replicable experimentation. In the other there is a discussion amongst those with shared philosophical commitments about police functions to silence voices that are oppositional to those philosophical commitments. Or, to put it bluntly, one side is discussing what to do with empiricism and the other side is discussing what to do with heretics.
Curiously, Hollender claims ignorance or neutrality concerning the science of extreme AGW.
The science does not support extreme AGW. The planet is not warming in accordance with the IPCC predictions. The IPCC general circulation models amplify CO2 warming (positive feedback).
Analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation from satellite vs ocean surface temperature indicates the planet resists warming or cooling changes (negative feedback) by increasing or decreasing cloud cover in the tropics.
The extreme warming IPCC predictions of 1.5C to 5C warming for a doubling of CO2 require that the planet amplifies the CO2 warming which is positive feedback. If the planet’s feedback response to a change in force is negative a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitude regions of the planet which will cause the biosphere to expand.
There is no extreme AGW warming problem to solve.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2012-0-34-deg-c/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/uah-global-temperature-up-06c-not-much-change/
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. … ….We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity….
…However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007)….
…This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth….
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/04/11/a-new-global-warming-alarmist-tactic-real-temperature-measurements-dont-matter/
A New Global Warming Alarmist Tactic: Real Temperature Measurements Don’t Matter
What do you do if you are a global warming alarmist and real-world temperatures do not warm as much as your climate model predicted? Here’s one answer: you claim that your model’s propensity to predict more warming than has actually occurred shouldn’t prejudice your faith in the same model’s future predictions. Thus, anyone who points out the truth that your climate model has failed its real-world test remains a “science denier.”
This, clearly, is the difference between “climate science” and “science deniers.” Those who adhere to “climate science” wisely realize that defining a set of real-world parameters or observations by which we can test and potentially falsify a global warming theory is irrelevant and so nineteenth century. Modern climate science has gloriously progressed far beyond such irrelevant annoyances as the Scientific Method.
Is Hollender aware commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse to increase yield and reduce growing times? The optimum level of CO2 from the standpoint of plants is 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm. It is now at 400 ppm. The yield for cereal crops for instances increases by 40% when grown in an test environment with CO2 at 780 ppm. CO2 is not a poison. We are carbon based life forms.
Carbon dioxide is an odorless gas and a minor constituent in the air we breathe. It comprises only .04% [ 400 parts per million, or PPM] of the atmosphere, but is virtually important to all life on this planet!
Plants are made up of about 90% carbon and water with other elements like nitrogen calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus and trace elements making up only a small percentage. Almost all the carbon in plants comes from this minor 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air.
http://hor134.blogspot.com.es/2007/11/module-12-co2-fertilization-and.html
“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).”
Gracious sakes alive! What is her definition of “gate-keeper” and could we have some examples?
“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.”
So there’s gate-keeping and failure to gate-keep? Something must have been lost in the translation (from German?)
“I used principles of critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, Wodak). ”
Checking Wikipedia, I find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_analysis. Frankly that whole article makes no sense. Apparently she divines hidden meanings or motives in material that she deconstructs. It’s “social science” at its highest level of nonsense.
jaycurrie says:
September 11, 2012 at 10:47 pm
Spot on Jay Currie. Additionally non scientists struggling to understand technical posts can ask an honest question without fear of a put-down or snide reply.
Anthony wrote:
Which may explain her silence now. Despite her claims of impartiality she has interfered with the subject of her study. You don’t suppose the threads she commented on were among her sample. She might have jeopardized her PhD. Wait, what am I saying, this is post-normal science we’re dealing with. But … Fake name, posing as skeptic (or at least not warmist), meaninglessly small sample size … kinda reminds me of Lewandowsky.
Still, I for one, am going to be a lot more respectful to Fraulein Hollender. Who knows, she could be one those calling the shots in that New World Order thingy we conspiro-contrarians are always talking about. [sarc]
The above statement is, in my opinion untrue about WUWT. There have been many articles posted in which there are close to equal numbers of dissenting posts. It has been my observation that respectfully worded dissents comments are answered with respect by those who disagree with them.
Those who post intentionally provocative statements [“trolls”] are sometimes dealt with in the same tone and manner of the provocateur’s post.
The discerning researcher should have noted that the Anthony and moderaters only step in when the comments may be too acerbic, off topic, harrassing, have an invalid email address, etc.
The researcher should have based her results on a much larger sample. Perhaps there was some cherry-picking in her selection of posts(?)
I find it interesting that “Post-normal” is defined in ways different from the way I myself do.
I personally define “normal” science as the study of the Truth, and thus a beautiful thing. (“Truth is Beauty,” and so on.)
Scientists, on the other hand, are merely human. Like all of us, they have flaws. When a new idea comes along, (for example, “Continental Drift,”) they likely will be skeptical. This is especially true if the new idea in some way undermines the validity of their own work. However, even while skeptical, they must not willingly embrace dishonesty and untruthfulness.
I define “post-normal” science as a corruption of these strict standards. Dishonesty is allowed, if it serves a political goal. The idea that “the ends justify the means” allows dishonesty and untruthfulness.
Personally, I feel this is a huge mistake. If you allow false data, while building a bridge, the bridge likely will fall down. I see this in history.
Dictators are merely human, and always seem to be tempted by a “might makes right” mentality which excludes voices which attempt to point out Truth which the dictator dislikes. Because the dictator is ignoring Truth, the social construct he heads tends to collapse, though not always in his lifetime. “The rise of X,” is only on the bookshelves in the short term, before it is replaced by “The rise and fall of X.”
Truth belongs to no one man, and if you abuse it, you lose it.