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
I enjoyed the comment about new media “increasingly permeating multiple media spheres.” There are so many interesting possibilities re why this is so.
Of course, one way to look at it is that the “old media” which was provided in pre-packaged form so that people would be “informed, entertained and have something to talk about” never really had anything but a captive audience. But that only scratches the surface about the charms and possibilities people find in blogs, live radio shows, and user-generated sites.
Never mind all of that. What do we do about contrarians?
Here is *my* take on the seminar, with a “reporter’s” slant to the story:
Thirteen people, including Franziska Hollender (Google +: https://plus.google.com/116446784794396843390/posts), attended a seminar on September 11, 2012 at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research on the Boulder campus of the University of Colorado.
Ms. Hollender recently completed her M.A. studies at the University of Vienna and is planning to pursue a PhD next spring. Her presentation centered around her M.A. thesis, which examined seven blog posts over six consecutive years by Anthony Watts on his blog, Watts Up With That.
Bobby, the woman who introduced Ms. Hollender as “Fran”, told us that Fran was taking an academic look at blogging, something few others have attempted. Bobby then asked Fran if she would take questions during her presentation, but Fran preferred to take questions at the end of her talk.
Fran started by talking about a “mediated society” that calls into question the integrity of science. One of the new media is the weblog, or blog. She noted that she also has a free blog about cooking, and mentioned that few blogs make money. She talked for some time about seven posts by Anthony Watts on WUWT. The comments on these seven posts had two notable functions: 1. Verification of the results in the posts; 2. Extended peer review. Comments on the September 1, 2012 post announcing her seminar also had these two functions.
In her thesis, Fran analyzed Anthony’s posts using critical discourse analysis in the manner of Fairclough and Wodak. She was especially interested in analyzing the power structures that were evident in the seven posts and their comment sections.
Fran’s analysis showed three major ideas that ran through all the posts:
1. Normal (Kuhnian) science is the good above all else.
2. Climate scientists are not following the scientific method and are not honoring the people who pay their bills and wages.
3. Post normal science (the science that comes *AFTER* normal, Kuhnian science, according to Ravetz and Funtowitcz) is anti-scientific.
Fran said very little more about Anthony’s seven posts. Instead she began her discussion of the 476 comments that followed Anthony’s posting of the announcement of the seminar she was now conducting.
First, she pointed out that Anthony’s policy to cull post comments of ridicule, personal attacks, and name calling was inconsistently enforced.
She said that this policy was clearly not being being carried out for the posts commenting on the WUWT announcement of her seminar – or any other comments that use tthe terms “warmist,” “alarmist,” “warmista,” or “global warming fanatic,” for example.
Next, she took umbrage at being called a “dipshit.
She objected to the terms “warmist” and “alarmist” but noted that the term “believer”, which Simon Kuper used in an article at the Financial Times, is not an accurate description of “people who are of the opinion that climate change is at least in part anthropogenic and worthy of public action” but is at a loss herself for a good one-word term.
She then discussed the authority and trustworthiness of science, asking, “Has science ever been normal?” Her answer was that it has never been normal. Scientists cannot be totally objective. They always have motives other than the mere search for knowledge and truth.
She observed that most of the people who posted comments to the WUWT announcement missed the point of her “Science AS ideology” (my emphasis) comment.
Because data collection is never unbiased, not being objective with the collection of data, Fran was reluctant to fault scientists who interpret their data in a biased way. She emphasized that observational bias is unavoidable.
She noted that even blogs have biases due to gatekeeping. Nobody sees the comments that have been snipped by moderators, so there is no objective way to determine if they were snipped deservedly. Fran pointed out that in all her studies of WUWT, few dissenting comments remained after moderation.
For example, there was a guest post on WUWT by Jerome Ravetz, in which he attempted to explain Post normal science and its enactment in the blogosphere. Fran felt that the response to Ravetz was almost entirely personal attack, and unfair personal attack at that, since clearly few of the attackers even understood what Ravetz was getting at.
Fran summed up her appreciation of WUWT and other blogs by saying that they are “Not that free. Not everyone is welcome.”
However, she emphasized that high interactivity on blogs is a plus: there are about 250 comments on each post on WUWT. The interactivity and lack of moderation mean that derogatory comments like “Offer her another Zoloft and put her by the window, she’ll enjoy the bright colours in the sunlight,” were “speech acts” that should be held accountable for their impoliteness and aggression.
“Holding science accountable is important.” People who comment on blogs that claim to be scientific should be held accountable for the aggressive speech acts that they have committed, according to Fran.
Then she noted that the vast majority of the comments that were appended to the seminar announcement descended into a discussion of Post normal science.
Fran’s appreciation of Post normal science is that it is a description of what happens after the science is done. It is not a prescription, but is a description of what people do after they understand what the normal science means in the real world. There are large issues at stake. What must we do with the knowledge we gain from science?
Thus, in Fran’s thinking Post normal science isn’t a different kind of science at all. It is the actions and words that occur *after* science is done with its objective data and replicated experiments – thus, POST (after) normal science.
Fran believes that, “blogs are underrated as media and need to be taken more seriously.” Blogs are good at noting that the role of science in society is a matter of ideology. Blogs are also good at extended peer review of the results of scientific inquiry. However, blog commentary as constructive discourse is impeded by personal attacks and ridicule, something she herself experienced in the comments to Anthony’s seminar announcement on WUWT.
Fran suggested that if blogs were willing to take out the arguing and attacks, they would become acceptable as academic and scientific discourse. She ended her presentation with the Heisenbergian statement that, “Observing a system changes the system.”
Then Fran opened the floor for questions.
One questioner mentioned that “open source” journals might be one solution to the problem of scientific peer review. Fran replied that unfortunately, scientific journals are usually put on paper, which costs money, and thus they will mostly remain read only within the scientific community, while blogs are open and are much better way to reach a wider public. Also, even though there are free journals, they are not very well promoted and thus reach fewer people from outside a discipline.
I asked Fran whether she could articulate the great divide, the thesis and antithesis of climate change.
She said that she was confused, and could not take a side. Her conviction is that humans do contribute to climate change and that it was worth it to make lifestyle changes like paying more for energy and recycling. She also mentioned that she believes in some version of the precautionary principle: we should do something if the stakes are so high that the entire planet might be affected. She said she would rather act sooner about such a situation rather than later. She added that her approach is very European. Europeans have a “give and get” tradition where they are willing to give more in taxes in order to get less poverty and environmental degradation.
Another questioner asked Fran about roles that commenters take on blogs, specifically the roles of policing the comments or the role of commenting productively. Fran noted that most people stick to some particular role, usually noting that they are stepping out of that role in a particular comment by saying something like, “I normally don’t do this, but now I will comment.” Unfortunately, the policing role generally degenerates into nothing but vicious comments, something that is “unproductive.”
Fran noted that she had to refrain from commenting on Anthony’s post about her seminar. “I wouldn’t be able to stop if I started commenting,” was the reason she gave for not participating in the commentary. Plus, the fact that doing so would have changed the object under study.
Another questioner asked if blogs could influence normal science. Fran noted that many of the guest posts on WUWT were by knowledgeable people, but people not usually publishable in normal peer reviewed journals. This might have some influence on normal science. However, some posts on WUWT were definitely not suitable for peer reviewed journals, most notably Anthony’s posts regarding Pachauri’s novel writings, an activity that has nothing to do whatsoever with Pachauri’s science or his believability as the head of the IPCC, at least in Fran’s opinion.
Thus, says Fran, “Ideas that don’t pass rigid scientific peer review get air.”
Another questioner mentioned Judy Curry’s blog and how it engages both believers and contrarians. Fran noted that Anthony has said that Judy Curry used to be a contrarian, but has “fallen off the bandwagon and retreated to warmist views.”
Fran noted that Jerome Ravetz had a guest post on WUWT, but the 500 comments on that post were almost uniformly “all bad.”
Fran said that she has “yet to find a blog where constructive discourse happens” when clashing views are encouraged.
Another questioner asked whether blogs could be the new “agora” in the Greek philosophical sense. Fran found the comment interesting.
Fran wrapped up the questioning by noting that there is still a lack of constructive discourse in the blogosphere. Among contrarians, the role of humans in climate change is still discussed, while among those who are believers, they are “not concerned about whether climate change is happening.” Believers are only concerned about what to do about it.
Bobby thanked all the participants for coming, and most everybody but a few contrarians left for classes or other activities. To the remaining few, Fran opined that she ultimately preferred the European lifestyle to that of America, but appreciates the possibilities and chances in America, having lived in different states and cities herself. She was appalled at the poverty she saw in big parts of the country and was flabbergasted that Americans could allow such blatant inhumanity to stand. She also noted that even with the higher taxes and lack of economic freedom in Europe, the lifestyle there has not changed for the worse.
richardscourtney says:
Subsequently, I posted my joke to which you have objected.
Richard, it is clear she does not understand us and so it is unlikely that she understands our humour, …. and now we await the humourologist who will dissect our humour to show that it is in fact growing at an alarming rate consistent with CO2 induced global snoring.
RockyRoad says:
September 11, 2012 at 9:47 pm
They don’t apply “gatekeeping” over at RealClimate–it’s more like “barndooring”.
======
100% of my comments at RealClimate have been posted – to the Borehole. This happened after I pointed out that the was no need for sea level proxies. That the British Admiralty 200-300 years ago made the single most complete and accurate scientific record of sea levels on a global scale, and that climate science has completely failed to double check their results against the Admiralty Charts.
The charts made by Cook, Vancouver, Bligh, Flinders, etc. These are the records of sea levels 200+ years ago. Why are they not used in sea level analysis? The answer is simple. Over the past 200+ years the charts do not show enough sea level rise to be visibly measured, on charts that are accurate to 1 foot.
These charts are ignored by climate science because they don’t fit the narrative of catastrophic sea level rise. Quite the opposite. They show that if sea level rise is occurring, it is so small as to be insignificant in a human lifetime. Much smaller than the daily tidal range. Much smaller than the average waves on a beach.
There is a statistical rule of thumb that in a normal population, the significant sample size is the square root of the population. For a reliable analysis of WUWT’s 7764 articles, you need a random sample of 89.
The irony here is just too funny.
Professor says “discursive strategies on WUWT include ridicule, personal attacks, and name-calling.” WUWT commenters respond with ridicule, personal attacks, and name-calling.
REPLY: You should go look at some of the pro AGW blogs and then explain to me how they are different. I also have a number of taunting blog-children that have setup blogs specifically to taunt and denigrate me. Seen any of those? I’m betting Fran hasn’t either. Compared to those, WUWT is pretty civil.- Anthony
Exactly. Without a counter-balancing analysis, this is yet another example of confirmation bias.
I attended the CSTPR Seminar 9/11/12. It was a pleasure to meet you, Ms. Hollender.
She provided a very broad outline of the research topic. No specifics. Others have provided specifics of the seminar and discussions. I found the topic of interest, so I will comment on the potential of the topic.
What can we learn by researching climate science blogs on how to improve the effectiveness of scientific exchange?
1. How can we increase the effectiveness of blogs in scientific discourse? Blogs are successfully engaging a diversity of people and view points, but also creating a large quantity of noise and vitriolic comments. How will we separate the wheat from the chaff (or do we need to)? Note: Google has been working on increasing the effectiveness of in-house scientific discourse with some scientific organizations.
2. Science is becoming more isolated and siloed, not engaging a diversity in perspectives. It might be okay for short term prestige and grant funding, but long term, this is detrimental to science and the public’s willingness to fund science. What can be learned from blogs for effectively engaging a diversity of perspectives?
3. Peer reviewed journals are not interactive nor accessible to the media, politicians, masses…. What can be learned from blogs/social media to improve the peer review journal process?
4. There will be significant Federal budget cuts that will impact science. Those who can best engage will best survive the severe cuts to come.
I would hope the research will study the structure of blog interactions and discourse to gain understandings in how to make them more effective for discussing differing scientific points of view. I recommend you drop any references to “contrarian” and make no references to “sides”. Study the process not the points of view. I would analyze a variety of highly used climate science topic sites.
As a scientist and engineer, I understand the desire for a comfortable, country club of scientific friends where we could pursue our interests for “the good of humanity”. Engaging a broad community with our science and justifying our research is very difficult and time consuming. Often they don’t understand. But, “trust us” no longer works in industrial nor public R&D.
As Shevva asks, what were the blog titles about?
At what point do you start to ignore “works” such as these, Anthony? There must be an unhealthy supply of them, and probably a larger supply of people who realize that they can get themselves free publicity by appearing on WUWT.
[They probably don’t realize, or don’t need to care, about what sort of publicity]
I was once on RealClimate and someone wanted me to provide at least 10 peer reviewed papers countering AGW. I responded that I could not provide 10 but over 500 and pointed them to the following link which was gate-keeped i.e. sniped in full.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Another time I pointed out that alarmists are well, too alarmist. I was asked for evidence and I pointed them to the following link which was gate-keeped i.e. sniped in full.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
I have had worse experiences at the old Climate Progress where my comment was not snipped but deleted then subsequently later comments never saw the light of day.
Franziska Hollender must realise that many people here and on other sceptical blogs have been gate-keeped a lot more than here.
DirkH says:
September 12, 2012 at 6:30 am
That’s where we are. In the form of Franziska Hollender, we are producing the next generation of rulers with no understanding of anything.
========
Perhaps not. In the west lawyers become politicians. In China it is engineers that become politicians. Who is in the better position to rule the world in the next generation?
Western politicians have a solution however. They will pass a law making us all rich. Those that are not rich will be given money until they are rich. The politicians guarantee the money will never run out, that we will all be rich. We need wait just a bit longer…
What to do with the contrarians? I bet dictators and tyrants have asked the same question throughout history.
What is the point of the study? To prove that gate keeping exists on blogs? No kidding. So what?
It also exists in the academic community … and everywhere else.
The point of blogs is simply they are an arena of alternative views. The days of the voices of Science, Politics, or Enforcement bodies being blindly accepted are done. These loose groupings of individuals have shown time and again that they serve their own agendas, make incorrect analyses, and can cost Joe Citizen billions on boondoggle programs … leaving future generations to pay the bill.
If the writer wants to study something of importance, why doesn’t she research what compels these groups to dare think they have all the answers or the intelligence to propose definitive conclusions on such complex matters without examining all the evidence and repercussions of their ideas.
Blogs are evidence of a lack of faith in the few who state the official party lines.
Isn’t it normal for the many to be tired of being managed by the few?
I’m not sure criticizing the sample size is appropriate. It depends on what you are trying to show. For example, there are lots of airplane flights every day—but if you see one that lasts for more than 10 minutes, you are correct in concluding that airplanes sometimes fly longer than 10 minutes.
I’ve read a number of posts on this blog, and I do detect a certain sameness. So, I doubt if a large sample is required to understand much that goes on.
Interestingly, I’ve never been censored on this blog, unlike the case at RC.
Billy
I didn’t see this question or answer, perhaps I didn’t look deeply enough:
What are the seven posts? And what were the selection criteria? I assume one criterium was one post per year between 2006 and 2012.
“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.” Science as promulgated by Popper and others says nothing about science staying inside the community, it simply expounds and identifies the methods and philosophy as do most WUWT readers.
Fran;
You just blew it.
“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.”
That statement demonstrates an anti scientific viewpoint which is likely irreparable.
The principles of normal science include reproducible results, shared data and methodology and even the archival of data and samples. I don’t know what universe you live in, but in this one data must be recorded, preserved (to include documenting any ‘adjustments’) and shared.
Not just shared amongst some ‘paradigmatic community’ but shared with those who disagree. Shared with those who do seek to tear it apart. If they succeed; you are wrong, and THAT IS SCIENCE. Some would say at its best.
The crux of the problem to date has been ‘the dog ate my homework’ aspect of the core of CAGW theory. Adjusting data, refusing to provide data, refusing to provide documentation for adjustments of government owned archival data, hiding from and obfuscating against FOI requests and so forth does not lend credibility to the likes of Mann, Hansen, Jones, Briffa, et. al.
The internet has indeed introduced a new paradigm; now data and methodology should be shared, universally, with any who care to have a look.
The days of hiding and obfuscating need to end. When someone looks and says ‘hey, your work is wrong’, other scientists can take a look and see. If the blogosphere is where laymen can argue, certainly peer reviewed journals have room for true scientific review of published articles.
Right now there are members of the ‘paradigmatic community’ of climate scientists hiding data, promoting political agendas directly related to their science, and a main stream media who refuses to listen to any but these ‘establishment scientists’. These same ‘scientists’ then attempt to game peer review, and have had a great deal of success doing so, much to the detriment of science itself. Then, when questioned on the science, they claim the media is being bombarded by ‘deniers’ who are funded by big oil. Even if there were any actual evidence of that, you seem to well understand that ad hominem attacks do not change the scientific foundations and science does not promulgate policy. They have engaged in out and out deception; see Climategate and Fakegate, for reference. They refuse to stop making false meme arguments, even long after they have been thoroughly debunked; see the Hockey Stick Illusion (of ‘hide the decline’ fame), the antarctic ice is in fact not in decline, and polar bears are demonstrably not in danger at all, least of all from global warming. Google fakegate, and the first result is an article at Politico that doesn’t seem to have picked up on the fact that the memo is acknowledged by everyone involved, including Peter Glick, to be a fake. These ‘high preists’ of the church of CAGW then portray any who dare to question their orthodox views as deniers and then argue against straw man arguments, rather than entertain a serious debate. Even their ‘consensus’ is demonstrably manufactured for media consumption. All of the hallmarks of fraudulent science. When you look at the political agenda driven by this ‘science’ it isn’t hard to comprehend.
It is hard to comprehend how any serious person, least of all an aspiring scientist, can fall for this.
And mind you; I am a skeptic that believes quite seriously that human CO2 emissions have probably caused some warming. It would be good if the scientists could get back to working out how much of it we’ve caused, rather then taking the ‘sky is falling’ approach, when the uncertainty clearly outweighs the provable effect of the CO2 at this time.
Maybe these ‘scientists’ could even attempt to make a model that doesn’t fall on it’s proverbial arse after just a couple of years. Tipping points and runaway greenhouses don’t seem to work in the real world climate, outside of the ice-age/glacial switch that we don’t yet understand. Hansen ought to come out and acknowledge that he claimed that the West Side Highway would be under water by now, and he was wrong. Or, giving him the benefit of the doubt; he’s still got another 10 or 20 years to go (and the interviewer got it wrong and he just let it go) under his prediction, and we’re not even one twentieth of the way to having sea level rise put it underwater.
Now; go redo your paper, using more than one web site, more than 7 articles from each, and make the articles themselves a part of the paper. Have at least some description of what was discussed; be it a scientific paper, a political event, or a discourse on the FOI laws in the UK. That could be relevant information to your paper.
But first; please take a moment to study what is meant by the word ‘science’ and what the term ‘scientific method’ means. From Ibn al-Haytham, Galileo and Pierce to Kuhn and Fleck; study what each of them contributed to science and the scientific method. Take note that not one of them ever benefited from or relied upon an FOI exemption. Take note that each has something to say about archiving data or methodology and sharing it.
How is that for peer review from the blogosphere?
W. Earl Allen says:
September 12, 2012 at 7:38 am
“Thus, in Fran’s thinking Post normal science isn’t a different kind of science at all. It is the actions and words that occur *after* science is done with its objective data and replicated experiments – thus, POST (after) normal science.”
That is the stupidest thing. Hans von Storch proposed to classify climate science as Post Normal Science not because he wants to do something with it AFTER the science is done but because model-based climate science CANNOT make a prediction (models only do projections) and therefore FAILS to ever reach the yardstick for Normal Science.
Please, can someone send her a Popper or something.
The last update about her previous anonymous comments is gold, Jerry… GOLD!
Scottish Sceptic says:
September 12, 2012 at 4:42 am
Scottish Sceptic
I suppose I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. Although I agree it is certainly true that in much of academia there is an assumption that questioning CAGW is wrong. And I entirely agree that it is foolish to study the informed opinions of people she does not understand who are posting and commenting on a blog about a subject she doesn’t understand.
Although it’s a very appropriate subject for the reasons you gave I’m not brave enough to suggest to a female sociologist that she should be studying childbirth. :o)
It was really, really obvious that she was talking about the 7 posts in question when she said none had less than 50 comments.
REPLY: Since she won’t tell us what the seven were, there’s no way to verify. It wasn’t obvious to me. In science, specifics are required. – Anthony
It seems to me that the entire blogging thing and blogging about science it giving the academics some serious problems. Many are simply unable to deal with every other “mans” right to be absolutely wrong and to say so. This whole port normal stuff is more smoke and mirrors then reality. Ideologists have always attempted to influence science and philosophy. What I see here at WUWT is very broadly based collective of ideal and analysis that coves a very wide range to thought. The “turth” (what ever that is) of anything will eventually rise and be recognized even if gruelingly.
Since she made some mention about a thread by Ravetz and one about Pachauri’s x-rated scribblings, it wouldn’t be unwarranted speculation that those were 2/7 of the threads on which she based her presentation.
Since she is a sociable scientist, I wonder how many of the head posts were related to actual science rather than sociable science.
I’ve read through maybe half of the above comments and did not see any discussing this conclusion sentence.
“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.”
1) climate change discourse has not been stifled by the “contrarians”, it has been brough into the light of day! AGW proponents don’t want discourse on the science, they want blind obedience to the authoritarian establishment.
2) of course we are obsessed with discussing the science basis because the AGW crowd has made many glaring scientific errors and hidden “facts” that weaken or contradict their conclusions. That is not science, that is ideology!
3) science is not and should never be an ideology, it must be based on facts, real world data and repeatable analysis. Ideology has no place in science, or the peer review process. It is obvious that this is not true for AGW climate science today and that is what the contrarians are fighting against. When the model predictions fail to match real world data, then you must change the MODELS, not revise historical data as has been repeatedly done by the AGW crowd.
Fran, I don’t beleive you have a clue about anything you wrote. Your paper is worthless, both scientificly or socially.
Bill
That the world now rewards and compensates “social scientists” more than real scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs is like the battle fought between the “producers” and “looters” in Atlas Shrugged. Ms. Hollender is your typical “social scientist” with lofty aspirations of becoming a queen looter. The rest of us scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs would like to know what accomplishments elevate her to that position. A faulty study should not be one of them.