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
“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.”
That’s not my experience on WUWT. I usually read the article, then point out things that I don’t like on it (even though I like other points and/or the article overall). I have never ever experienced my post being deleted even if it contained strong criticism, unlike on other blogs. And my criticism is even rarely attacked, sometimes others even agree. Although the fact that tracking discussion in the comments part is not very easy and people tend to screw up my nickname may play a role in that, too.
I suspect Ms Hollender understands very little about what drives the climate and her bias is based upon limited selective reading of alarmists political advocacy blogs. Perhaps Ms Hollender should hang around WUWT for a month or two, keep an open mind, ask questions and participate in the discussions.
If this is a dissertation for a German Master’s Degree (M.Phil.), then analysisng just 7 WUWT threads seems a paltry effort.
from what I can tell, WUWT is pretty full of people withquite a bit of SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.
So why the **** do we even bother with what some scientifically illtierate social scientist think.
In the scheme of REALITY, their thoughts ar TOTALLY IRRELEVANT
(expect red wine typos) yummm
Just to add to my last comment. The lack of opposing views may just be a facet of the way conversations go here because it may suit the “sceptic mind”. There is not a lot of feedback or social chit-chat. You need to be quietly confident your view is “worthy” because there is not a lot of social support & and there is the minimum of hierarchy and that which there is, is not open to “alternative” views. By it’s very nature because those opposing us tend to argue from authority and seek “consensus”, they will prefer a different type of conversation where they get more social support & social esteem.
Perhaps we should introduce “number of posts”. Most people won’t think it is relevant, but alarmists will see a high number as being a mark of social esteem, which might encourage them to join?
FRAN.. you know ZIP.. so ZIP IT !!!
gringojay says:
September 12, 2012 at 1:00 am
“Quote: “Adapting to climate change may require certain lifestyle changes, which she does embrace (such as recycling)….” ”
I’ve just been to her blog. She might want to consider doing her next world tour with a canoe. And stop using Apple products.
“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.”
She is mad. She talks from her high horse yet she admits climate science is too hard for her. And re the data capture, I’d bet she wouldn’t even know how to do that. She probably knows more postmodern philosophers than signal theory and here she is pontificating about data.
I’d like to apologize for this entirely useless individual from our continent that seems to have decided to go to the promised land of liberal arts, the USA. Now you have the damage.
So my question is, and I doubt we’ll get a direct answer to this, is Fraulein Hollender in fact “thedetroiter?”
And if so, was the misrepresentation of her background and positions to her audience deliberate?
And out of idle curiousity, why Detroit?
Lots of interesting comments here! I must admit that lately I wonder why I spend so much time on my reading about AGW and visit various websites for the views expressed.
My background after all has nothing to do with climate, it’s in healthcare (nursing and hospital laboratory technology to Ph.D. level).
My interest was triggered by Al Gore’s book, which I read about five years ago. I instantly formed the opinion that this was little else than a carefully crafted piece of propaganda, and downright condescending in some parts. That’s when I looked further afield. I looked at other books – those of S.Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, Ian Plimer, Robert M. Carter and Roy W. Spencer providing a welcome relief from the tide of doom on the bookshelfs. Clearly, my opinion on climate matters doesn’t really matter a proverbial monkey’s cuss, maybe the AGW brigade have got it right – after all, I’m not a meteorologist and I don’t have the physics background to judge the climate models, satellite data and so on. However, there are things that have been propagated that I know to be wrong because they’re a part of my background (spread of diseases attributed to AGW for example), so I find myself wondering what else that we’ve been told is also wrong.
And then there’s the hockey stick. Aside from all the shenanigans and controversy, here’s a claim that using proxy data it’s possible to deduce temperatures from a thousand years ago to within a fraction of a degree. A fraction of a degree. Really?
Regarding tree ring data, are there any botanists out there who can tell us what factors can influence tree ring width?
I also wonder why no-one’s constructed a modern version of John Tyndall’s experiment. An artificial atmosphere, so that variable amounts of CO2 and water can be pumped into it to assess what difference one ppm of CO2 really makes. A proper model in other words. Not the real world it’s true, but at least there’d be some solid evidence to back up or refute the claims made.
So why do I look at the blogs? Because I learn from them.
The Precautionary Principle: Men, do not get married. Instead, find a woman who hates you and buy her a house.
Capell says:
September 12, 2012 at 2:10 am
If this is a dissertation for a German Master’s Degree (M.Phil.), then analysisng just 7 WUWT threads seems a paltry effort.
As we seem to be seeing in journals, the intent and usefulness of the claimed result seems to be more important than the quality of the research.
Which is actually just as sad for “them,” in the long run, as it is for us. Irony.
Ms Hollender:
I am addressing this to you because I am certain you are reading this thread (for the reasons stated by davidmhoffer at September 11, 2012 at 10:06 pm).
I commend that you reject your thesis because it uses flawed assumptions to analyse an inadequate sample selected using extreme observer bias and thus reaches demonstrably incorrect conclusions. And I commend you to replace your thesis with the information and arguments presented in this thread. For your convenience, I list some especially pertinent posts which explain the inadequacies of your study.
Scottish Sceptic at September 11, 2012 at 11:41 pm (who explains the fundamental difference between science and PNS of which – if the report of your presentation is anywhere near correct – you are completely ignorant)
Maus at September 12, 2012 at 12:17 am (who explains a fundamental flaw in your methodology of which you seem unaware)
R.S.Brown at September 12, 2012 at 12:48 am (who points out the inadequate reporting of your work which – on its own – requires your study to be rejected)
JJ at September 11, 2012 at 10:57 pm (whose cogent assessment consigns your work to the refuse bin)
davidmhoffer at September 11, 2012 at 11:22 pm (who accurately points out the inevitable destination of the road paved by PNS)
TinyCO2 at September 12, 2012 at 1:16 am (who lists demonstrable facts many of which your ‘study’ ignores or denies but are familiar to all who study an adequate sample of threads on WUWT )
I hope you find this selection a helpful contribution for support of your Masters studies which are intended to raise your analytical skills to a useful level.
Richard
“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.”
A sweeping generalisation based on the way data is treated in the social sciences. In real science the data is the data and if it is biased it is soon found out, hence the existence of a strong corps of what Fran calls “contrarians”, the data is the same, but the interpretations of it different. I don’t believe in foretelling the future, even using sophisticated models, to Fran that gives me a peculiar mindset one that argues with scientists. This hierarchical thinking is rife in the social sciences, strangely, because it is populated mainly be “progressives” who consider themselves to be egalitarian. Anyone can argue with anyone else as long as they present facts and data, you don’t have to be qualified.
Finally I wonder why they’re concentrating of “contrarians”, why not ponder why there are people around who want to destroy the best conditions humans have ever had in their history – not all for sure, but eventually it will be all. To me at least, sixty years ago in the UK i lived in a house with two bedrooms upstairs one cold water tap and sink and an outside toilet. We could only afford one fire to be lit, we had mice and cockroaches and we were far from being unusual. Most people ran out of money the day before pay day and welfare just kept you from death’s door. We’ve moved from there to here because of cheap energy. So I ask myself why is the fact that there are people out there who want to take us back sixty years of no interest to the social scientists?
Merovign says:
September 12, 2012 at 2:19 am
“So my question is, and I doubt we’ll get a direct answer to this, is Fraulein Hollender in fact “thedetroiter?”[…]
And out of idle curiousity, why Detroit?”
It looks like she studied there.
http://www.csuohio.edu/class/com/clevelandstater/Archives/Vol%209/Issue%2010/news/news091003.html
“Hollender” BTW is a pretty rare German name, as the regular spelling for “Dutchman” would be “Holländer”. So I’m sure this is that person.
TinyCO2 said: “6) We’ve no time for brain shrinks who poke us with a stick from afar and then smugly make evaluations”. Bang on – though I would personally have said “brain shrinks or other ‘ologists’ …”.
However it’s good to see that WUWT is now the journal of record in the climate blogosphere and is now having post-grad studies into its discourses!
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 makes a fair point. We could save a great deal of time and money by dismantling our climate monitoring systems and switching to a regular internet survey in order to establish OHC and atmospheric temperature profiles. The ‘science basis’ is so yesterday.
With the volume of ‘moon landing conspiracy believing wack-jobs’ at WUWT and other ‘sceptic’ blogs we will have LT temperatures voted down in no time – end of debate. [/sarc]
Really Anthony – you are giving these people far too much time and attention. Lewpaper indeed.
Lots of good detailed comments deconstructing a poor study influenced by this preconcieved bias…”Some propose that the contrarian discourse is merely an annoying sideshow, while others think that it is science’s responsibility to fight them.”
Who are these some? This sentance alone shows the author to have a clear bias as she separates “science” from the “contrarians”, who, in her view, are clearly not scientist, but something science needs to fight, or they are an annoying pesky side show who should be ignored.
The fact that she claims no bias later is irrelevant to a sentance that demonstrates bias. She innsults the thirty plus thousand scientist that signed the Oregon petition by her refusal to accept that the sceptical scientist may be correct. (In her view they, “sceptical scientist” do not exist, they are either annoying, or to be fought by science) She ignores hundreds of peer review papers which demonstrate reasons to be critical of the CAGW meme. She implies bias in who gets banned without discussing actual reasons they may have got banned. She does not compare the allowance of dissenting viewpoints, virtualy 100% allowed here when on topic and following blog policy, verses the clear censorship at some pro CAGW sites. She cherry picks some personnal attacks as representive of common comments, when in fact most subjects have dozens of comments with dozens of links to disparate perspectives on most subjects.
I would love to hear this miss-educated person discuss what is, and what is not settled science in regard to CAGW. It would not surprise me at all to hear her say that …”97percent of climate scientist agree…. I would love to hear her “percautionary” thoughts on what the possible “unintended consequences” are if the draconian one world govt solutions advocated by CAGW proponents were fully enacted. I doubt the thought of doing a cost benefit analyisis ever occured to her.
Climate Alarmists politicians hate the Internet .Hate Bloggers always contradicting .Causing Trouble
James Dellingpole reporting Climagegate hasnt got 23 Million news paper reader.But reporting Climatagate he 23million Mouse clicks instead.Last century Enviromentalists just an off shoot of Last Century Anti consumerist Radicals .The Hocky Stick just the last embers of Last Century Millenium Angst.
Last Century Politics generally hate the internet because it cant up up with it.Niether can science.
If someone makes a major scientific breakthrough why report to Sir Paul Nurse in the Hallowed halls of The Royal Society just Tweet it instead.
Truth is Micheal Mann prsented the Hocky Stick in 1998 a few years BEFORE the internet really took of Facebook.Paypal Napster Ebay ITunes .The internet now more than just Porn and Emails .
The Hocky Stick is old school politics. Old school Hype TV news and Newspapers.
Question would the Hocky Stick be so convincing if it had been now on a grainy Youtuby Podcast instead amonst the popup advertizing for Eharmony.
Climate Skepticism .Tea Party Occcupy Arab Spring movements all new internet based poitics.
The Hocky Stick is over 20 years old BN (Before the Net)
Blogs comments section youtube rants is the new 21st Century public discourse.
Basically anybody can say anything.Its greatest strengh and its greatest strengh.Old politics for all the news print and TV Slots its just not enough to get your message across.
The Revoloution has been Digitalised .And if you want to see George Osborne and David Cameron beiing booed at the ParaOlympic Games on TV you can find it on Youtube.
Who should we thank for this genuine revoloution in free speech Rupert Murdock..giving Humanistic Libertarian Compassionate politics its voice on the screens of millions of PCs Laptops and Mobile Phone across the globe
Sir Tim Burners Lee didnt want his invention being exploited and corrupted by some Media Megalmanic Mogul.So he put a Free Patent on Data Packet Switching.He should be the man with the Nobel Peace Prize fuck Al Gore.
Had my say now everyone elses turns.
Having read all the comments up to 1:52 am, Sept 12th, I feel I can say that the comments on this post are a model of crowd-sourced exposure of a very poor study. 0.09% sample, for shame!
If I applied Hollander’s study to this one post, how would I know the ‘gate-keeper’ has deleted any comments (other than those that say ‘snipped’)? If a comment is deleted it’s got to be like Schroedinger’s Cat. So what is her evidence of comment deletes – and how do the numbers of deleted comments compare to other blogs (RC and SkS, for instance)
It would have been helpful to know which seven Posts were selected for the study and how many comments were in them. It would most certainly have been interesting to see what Ms Hollander would make of the posts concerning the ‘editing’ of comments on SkS. In fact, it would be interesting if Ms Hollander had the courage to do a similar analysis on SkS – and then see if she could get it posted there, let alone commented on.
Fran
You’re no doubt reading these comments. Fundamentally I think you’re a decent person but you do present yourself as being prejudiced against WUWT and people who question Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I know that students are under pressure to believe in CAGW. You may be concerned that not believing in CAGW or producing a thesis which may be contrary to that view could mean not getting your Masters.
WUWT is a hot potato. If you criticize the views expressed here you will have to stand up and defend yourself with rational, evidence based arguments.
My advice to you is to scrap your research, forget all your sociology jargon and start again. Begin with a completely open mind. Read all the posts on WUWT. Try to understand them. Look at the math or analyse the graphic depictions and explanations of the climate. Understand the science as much as you can.
Then read as many of the comments as you can manage. The majority of the comments and debates were written by highly intelligent people. Many are scientists and engineers whose second language is mathematics. They do understand climate science and the issues involved.
When you have completed that do the same with RealClimate, as Anthony suggested.
Then write your thesis.
I’d hate to fall victim to racial stereotyping, but there is a view that the Germanic peoples are more comfortable with a more ordered and organised society, with stronger central control, While British-based people are more at home with a laissez-faire approcah.
Perhaps it is this desire for more ordered discourse that lies behind her dislike of those pesky commentators that just refuse to stay on the set topic. Perhaps they shoud all be told to stay behind after school and learn to do the work that teacher sets the…not wander off into other things
And some people sad disobliging things! How could they? They should just sit there and get psychoanalysed by a Masters student quietly and without complaint.
‘Personal attacks on Ms. Hollender were commonplace, including “This girl has a brain the size of a peanut.”
My advice to her is that she should (metaphorically) grow a pair before diving into the blogosphere. It is not a strongly regulated extension of the academosphere, but a (mostly) very weakly regulated addition to it. IMO it is the rough and tumble, no holds barred robust style that gives it its freshness and immediacy as a refershing alternative to the lethargic and ponderous style of academe.
And if noisy multi-faceted debate is not to her taste she should definitely avoid the Dog and Duck early on a Friday evening
geronimo says:
September 12, 2012 at 2:52 am
“A sweeping generalisation based on the way data is treated in the social sciences. In real science the data is the data and if it is biased it is soon found out, hence the existence of a strong corps of what Fran calls “contrarians”, the data is the same, but the interpretations of it different. I don’t believe in foretelling the future, even using sophisticated models, to Fran that gives me a peculiar mindset one that argues with scientists. This hierarchical thinking is rife in the social sciences, strangely, because it is populated mainly be “progressives” who consider themselves to be egalitarian. Anyone can argue with anyone else as long as they present facts and data, you don’t have to be qualified.”
Simple. Social sciences need to find a backdoor to re-introduce themselves into the hard science context, so by arrogantly calling each and every data collection “subjective” (without delving into the details as the technicalities of how to ensure data quality are not of ANY interest to them), they can reintroduce the old canard of solipsism / existentialism, denigrate objectivism etc etc.
You see the same pattern at Jerome Kravetz, the inventor of PNS, who stated in a guest post on WUWT that he does not believe in an objective reality.
In the end, it’s all a divide-et-impera strategy. I’ll take my bridge engineer over a social scientist any day if I have to cross that bridge, thank you very much.
Aww, Geeze, not this again, social criticism of science? Read of the Sokal Affair, read Gross and Levitt. Or not.
This postnormal science thing is pretty darn obvious.
We have a bunch of scientifically illiterate socal science/humanities/philosophy academics that think they want to have a touchy-feely say in what they refer to as climate science. They can’t call it real science, or apply proper scientific principles, so they are trying to apply “artistic” and “social” memes to the debate. This is what is called Post-normal science.
It has basically zero credence within any real science, so they can only argue at a totally non-scientific level, which means trying to portray those who do actually understand the science as “bad ” or “immoral”. It is the ONLY arguement they have.
We see it will the likes of the Ork, Manne, Lewy, Flim-flam.. and with many left wing (and unfortunately some right-wing) politicians.
A constant display of ignorance, over-run by ego.
How is it that “social scientists” and so many journalists don’t get that blogs like WUWT are not pedantic discourse, they’re conversations. And like all conversations, they’re full of animation, discussion, pejorative, passion and outrage. The closest social analogue is an open discussion after the presentation of a seminar, wherein the audience engages itself to discuss the presentation laid before it. The gate-keeping is there to keep the audience from becoming a mob. Could the lack of awareness be that so many blogs are a one-sided conversation, because nobody chooses to engage the blog-writer?
Ms Hollender’s thesis work for a graduate degree fails, badly. In more rigorous times, it wouldn’t even qualify for an undergraduate thesis at baccalaureate level. Personal opinion doesn’t constitute a researched thesis at any intellectual level. I’m disappointed for her. So much of an opportunity to truly learn lost, so much time wasted allowing herself to be framed by others, rather than finding the enlightment that comes with self-critical thought. This should be the goal of every university student and their teacher, not hiding in the shadows seeking only solace in peer approval.