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
Interesting. Ms. Hollender seems to feel as one of my philosophy professors did. He would never reveal his opinions on religion, etc, because he might overly influence us. I always considered that an insult to the intelligence of his students (or very narcissistic). One suspects she simply fears a verbal tirade concerning her view, no matter what side she chooses. If she really has no idea what is correct, it is always best to so state and then stop talking. Everything from that point forward either sounds evasive and/or dishonest.
There are blogs that concern skeptics and climate change that do not allow insults. I love commenting on and reading them. There are not very many comments because one has to really think through their post before presenting it on the blog. These are excellent blogs and I wish there were more of them.
As for getting off subject, I learn a lot no matter where the topic goes. I would think most readers of this blog are used to the comments meandering and are okay with that idea.
Bill @ur momisugly 8:53 am 12th September 2012:
I have spent the whole afternoon reading every single comment and that paragraph was mentioned a few times.
I agree with your points 1), 2) and 3).
I think I need to get out for a walk in the fresh air after all this. It is cold and windy here in North Yorkshire, with the occasional really heavy downpour and some sun. What ho!
A little browsing on the CSTPR site brought up this gem from Roger A. Pielke, Jr.:
“Awareness of our ignorance—the creation of nonknowledge—is important in democracy because it opens the way for flexible policies that learn and evolve based on experience, subject to the approval of the plebiscite. Such awareness also sensitizes the public to the possibility—indeed the inevitability—of policy failure. The alternative is a “lock in” to strategies that are far more brittle and incapable of evolving.”
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2012.12.pdf
First, I wish to thank W. Jackson Davis for his timely Approximate Transcript and his foresight to ask Ms. Hollender to vet it for accuracy. It gives us some info that can be used for discussion. However, I will wait to do a detailed analysis of her seminar presentation until I see the official video and/or transcript. Now I can offer only some observations of her basic argument.
Second, I thank Anthony for what seems like the 100th time for his open venue that is well moderated by his volunteers.
My general observation of Franziska Hollender’s seminar is that the fundamental premises her seminar rests on are merely several invalid presumptions. She does this ‘a priori’ without stating them explicitly as presumptions and she offers no justification of uncritically endorsing them as the basis of her argument.
She bases her argument on an unjustified and invalid premise that a person who is critical in any way of the climate scientists whom the IPCC Assessment Reports endorse (as the consensus of correct authority in climate research) means that person’s efforts are fundamentally and inherently contrary to the general scientific method and the results thereof. Evidence that she holds this invalid premise is her explicit representation of those critics as ‘contrarians’ to science per se. On that basis alone I discount her seminar presentation as explicitly subjective and intentionally biased.
Also, she bases her argument on another unjustified and invalid premise; that she has possession of some kind of special knowledge that allows her to objectively claim that no objective knowledge of the nature of reality is possible. Seriously, it is what Hollender is saying. NOTE: Ravetz’s work also claims objectivity in claiming there is no objectivity possible in ‘normal’ science.
Those two false and hidden premises are just my initial observations of Hollender’s premising problems. [Better to do shorter posts that one excessively long post.] More later.
John
DirkH: “… but because model-based climate science CANNOT make a prediction (models only do projections) …”
This is another clip-art line. Or the linguistic performance of an avowal, if you want to stay with the zeitgeist. But a prediction and a projection are precisely the same thing. Labeling a prediction as a projection is only useful to then state that the theory was not falsified when the prediction was. Which is terribly absurd and does unsightly things to Popper’s corpse.
I get it! Post-normal science is when you ignore reality and let the politicians run things. 🙂
Oh, wait…
It seems to me that Hollender both complains about gate-keeping and then complains there isn’t enough of it. She does have a point about consistent enforcement, because the violation of policy is a subjective call by the moderator.
Still, she sampled 7 posts over a period of 7 years. Is that really a good sample? Is it representative? How were those 7 posts selected for analysis?
It’s really sad that her paper seems to be very representative of the poor quality of higher-education in America. She doesn’t understand the objections to post-normal science, she doesn’t understand the objections to not following the scientific method and she doesn’t understand why don’t we just all believe exactly what she believes.
After all, wouldn’t life be easier for the collective if we would just let ourselves be assimilated?
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” — Albert Einstein
The rarefied air of climate science seems to really fear that “single experiment,” but then again they seem to define the problem such that there is no “single experiment” that can prove any thing.
Is her study reproducable ? Where is the data? Who paid for it?
Maus says:
September 12, 2012 at 10:02 am
“DirkH: “… but because model-based climate science CANNOT make a prediction (models only do projections) …”
This is another clip-art line. Or the linguistic performance of an avowal, if you want to stay with the zeitgeist. But a prediction and a projection are precisely the same thing. Labeling a prediction as a projection is only useful to then state that the theory was not falsified when the prediction was. Which is terribly absurd and does unsightly things to Popper’s corpse.”
A projection is for a scenario, with a random initial state; a prediction would be for the real world, with an accurate initial state. So they can say, we have run that scenario and this is the projection.
Basically it’s all moot, climate is chaotic and a chaotic system cannot be reliably simulated with a model with finite precision. So, they will never pass that yardstick and until everybody agrees to stop funding them they will muddle along, you know that and I know that. And as long as they muddle along, social scientists , hungry for power, will inject themselves into the fray.
NOTE: To be clear, this is a reply from Franziska Hollender – Anthony
I debated with myself whether to comment here at all, but since below the personal assaults there are questions I am happy to answer, why not.
First off, to be completely honest, I had forgotten that I had once upon a time commented here, too. I apologize for making a false statement, it certainly wasn’t planned deception. However, this does not change anything, I was not in any of the sampled posts. “thedetroiter” is not a fake name, it is my screen name. Many of you have screen names, that’s how it goes on the Internet. Why Detroit? Because I was once upon a time an exchange student in Detroit. However, how is this relevant to my work? Why does it matter what I once wrote about myself years ago, who really cares about my personal life, and why SHOULD you care? I’ve noted this over and over again: while it is of no matter of all, you still try to seek out any sort of personal (not scientific) weakness you can find. I will not be put into a situation in which I have to defend my personal life which is none of your business. I am happy about constructive criticism of my work-in-progress, even the type that is worded rather crudely.
Now, to the “transcription”: it is true that I was given the opportunity to review the text before it got submitted. However, I was also pressured quite quickly by saying “If you don’t change anything right NOW, I will just post it as it is.” It was late and I don’t actually spend all of my day on the Internet, hence I chose to make the most important changes instead of having something posted that I felt missed the point. There will be an actual recording up on the CSTPR website in a while, so for those who are actually interested, you are welcome to listen for yourself.
During the talk, I actually got the feeling that many of the misunderstandings were resolved quite well, even with the “contrarian crowd”. I explicitly stated that I think blogs are an excellent medium to do extended peer-review and that WUWT works well in this regard. I also said that it is a way of holding science accountable, which also works well, looking at the site’s track record of pointing out data issues and the like. One commenter pointed out that a rather fierce mode of discussion is beneficial for sorting out “matters of truth”. I agree. There is a thin line though. Also, I was asked directly whether it is true that I was trying to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. This is true. I do not have an agenda. I am not paid for my research, I did it out of interest. I could have done anything else and yet I chose to “pick a fight with the biggest dog in the park” as someone phrased it. I also said in the talk that none of the characteristics that I found are exclusively a “contrarian” thing, just to make that clear. You are completely correct in saying that ridicule and the likes go on at other blogs, too. Sometimes even in the same way. But saying “but the others are doing that, too” doesn’t change anything about this observation HERE. I agree that a comparison would be a great next step. Nevertheless, my aim is not to hold a contest which blog has better comments or something like that. My impression was that blogs are much more important and vibrant than they are sometimes judged to be, also, they are way more complex than “less gatekeeping, more interaction (than traditional media such as newspapers)” and that they really need to be taken more seriously. I feel like I succeeded in verifying this. Next time someone asks me whether my research is relevant at all, I will just point that person to the posts about my talk.. 😉
What I also mentioned – and this wasn’t reflected in any of the reports about the talk – is what I meant saying that some people propose it is only a sideshow, etc. I used two opposing sides, namely “The contrarian discourse is an irrelevant culture war (rough quote!)” by Simon Kuper, FT, also Roger Pielke Jr.’s statement on his own blog that it is just a sideshow that does not have an effect on policy-making (see here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/12/about-those-skeptics.html) The other perspective is represented by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway, in an article called “Defeating the merchants of doubt” which you can access here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7299/full/465686a.html if you’re a suscriber to Nature or have access to a University library network. I tend to find lots of articles posted online free of charge by running the titles on Google, so you may try this if you don’t have access.
I used these two opposing opinions in order to structure my discussion. My conclusion is that BECAUSE the discourse is happening largely on blogs, it is NOT an irrelevant sideshow that should be ignored or fought. This points again to the assumption that the medium chosen is very important to the message.
Why only WUWT, why only seven posts and 1600 comments? This is not a book. It is a study conceptualized for six months of work. In my discipline I was encouraged do to an in-depth study rather than an overview of different blogs, which would simply have a different – no less important – focus. WUWT was, after a while of reading different blogs, the best choice for me: it is highly visible in both the blogosphere and tradtional media, it gets a very high amount of comments, there is lively interaction, a high volume of posts,… Why NOT WUWT? It also scores well on Technorati and other indexing tools. I believe that there is much to be done when it comes to academic research of the blogosphere and you have to start somewhere. In order to do qualitative, not quantitative work, it is less important to have large samples and more important to study the sample thouroughly. This was not content analysis. I appreciate that many people here are not familiar with discourse analysis, but it really isn’t fair to lash out at a methodology where all you know about it is a Wikipedia post. Go ahead, read a book on it, then make up your mind.
Some people were offended that I hadn’t asked permission to read their comments for my research. I am sorry you feel that way. There is a difference between participant observation and non-participant observation, and I chose to do the latter. All of the material here has been posted online and in public. I am sure everyone is aware of that. All of the 1600 comments I looked at were of course, when they were quoted, anonymized. Nothing can be traced back to a particular person. There is a wide variety of ways in which you could do this work, and there are valid arguments for all of them.
Keep in mind, too, that this was a short synopsis, not a presentation of every single aspect of the paper I wrote. I presented what I felt to be the most important findings to reinforce my statement about the importance of blogs.
I will not be responding to every single comment in this thread. Mostly because I simply do not have the time. Also because I don’t have calluses yet, I still care about those personal assaults and am certainly unwilling to engage in any discussion while I am being attacked like this. Those who are interested in a constructive and calm discussion are welcome to let me know – I, in turn, will E-Mail you and get the party started.
= = = = =
W. Earl Allen and Keith,
Your commentaries from your attendance of the Hollender seminar are appreciated. In addition to the seminar commentary by W. Jackson Davis, you have thankfully provided readers at WUWT with several quite independent reports of Hollender’s presentation.
Was there info given on when and where the video and official transcripts of her seminar will be available?
John
Video (the slideshow, not a recording of me speaking) and audio should be up within the next weeks, it takes a while to edit I guess. It will be available on sciencepolicy.colorado.edu, which is the website of CSTPR.
thedetroiter says:
September 12, 2012 at 10:42 am
“I believe that there is much to be done when it comes to academic research of the blogosphere and you have to start somewhere. In order to do qualitative, not quantitative work, it is less important to have large samples and more important to study the sample thouroughly. This was not content analysis.”
Qualitative work, ignoring the content?
Paste from the Q&A session:
“A. She is still undecided on the science. […] The precautionary principle is important–it is essential to act sooner than later.”
This is EXACTLY the PNS approach. Act now, no matter the cost, ask questions later. If anyone’s still paying attention.
The blog “thedetroiter” is now marked as private.
@John Whitman says:
September 12, 2012 at 9:51 am
A little bone to pick with you — she doesn’t understand the scientific method and is completely confounded about why we keep bringing it up. The science has been done, in her mind, what we should do about the problem is what we should be focusing on (the “post” in post-normal science).
She doesn’t even grasp that there likely isn’t any real problem to worry about.
Our impartial scientist again, in a comment she forgot:
She doesn’t even seem to know that Vahrenholt in 1978 wrote the book “Seveso ist ueberall” (Seveso is everywhere) that warned of the dangers of dioxins and other chemical pollutants after the dioxin catastrophe in the chemical plant at Seveso, Italy, which killed several hundred people.
Not only biased, despite her protestations, but uninformed as well. Vahrenholt BTW is a social democrat (SPD), comparable to American Democrats.
The German Greens were not yet founded when he wrote the book.
= = = = = =
Franziska Hollender,
I appreciate you coming here to comment.
My critique of your seminar presentation based on the attendee reports is about premises in your argumentation that are ‘a priori’ presumptions that contain invalid concepts. I articulated two such invalid premises of yours in a comment above. Would you care to continue a dialog based on that comment? I reproduce that comment here for your convenience:
Several more critiques of some other of your premises will follow on this WUWT thread.
John
In reply to Ms. Hollender’s question what do skeptics discuss? (i.e. I would suggest you read through the attach links if you are interested in the scientific and economic issues related to the extreme AGW paradigm.)
The extreme AGW paradigm pushers have tried to create a strawman hypothesis that any warming due to CO2 means that there will be catastrophic warming due to CO2. They purposely misrepresent the skeptics’ position. The skeptics do not assert there will be no warming; they assert observational evidence indicates there will be benign beneficial warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The very, very, high forecasted IPCC general circulation model forecasted warming 1.5C to 5C is only physically possible if the planet amplifies the forcing change due to CO2 warming. If the planet resists the change (negative feedback) due to an increase in planetary clouds in the tropic the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is less than 1C with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will cause the biosphere to expand.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2012-0-34-deg-c/
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/04/11/a-new-global-warming-alarmist-tactic-real-temperature-measurements-dont-matter/
Connected with the extreme AGW paradigm is the “green” energy paradigm. This paradigm is that if only more money if invested in the “green” energy will be many jobs created and the world will be a better place. Green energy is however a scam. There is a net loss in jobs due the green energy subsides and there is no significant reduction in CO2 emissions. There is therefore no rational reason to spend money on “green” energy. People support the concept of “green” energy. General taxpayers absolutely will not support “green” energy subsidies that result in a net loss in jobs and have no appreciable difference in CO2 emissions which is not a problem anyway in term of planetary temperature rise.
The following is a critique of the economically best of the suite of “green” energy sources, but fatally flawed wind farm.
There are two basic issues with wind farms. 1) Wind farms must be located where there are steady strong winds, which is a small area of each continents. (problem is major city are not located near the wind sources and there is physical limited as to how far electric power can be moved, even with super high voltage very expensive DC systems, this eliminates wind as possible energy source for many major cities and 2) the wind is an intermediate source where the power generated is at the square of the wind velocity. The best locations for wind farms produce power for less than 40% of the time. Germany wind farms produced power for example for less than 20% of the time. Wind farms therefore require energy storage, as the wind does not blow when energy is required. Conventional power plants produce power on demand.
There is no economic energy storage. Those advocating wind farms suggest a fantasy “smart energy” grid that can magically move electric power thousands of miles without energy loss. That is not impossible and a super high voltage line costs billions of dollars and requires massive movement of power from region to region to be justified. There is insufficient power to justify the super high voltage power lines.
Scientific America has a fantasy article written in this August issue that at least acknowledges that storage is required. The fantasy article notes Denmark generates 20% of their power from wind farms and then explains Demark sells all of their wind power to Norway which produces power from hydro which can be turned off and on. Demark then purchases hydroelectric power from Norway when then need electricity. The point is the wind does necessarily blow when power is need. Demark is the ideal location for wind farms as it is small country with cities located in along a windy coast line with a small adjacent country that has a surplus of hydroelectric power.
The article notes that the Danes have the most expensive electric power in Europe. Ironically oil revenue rich Denmark can use the surplus oil revenue to pay for a power scheme that does not make economic sense. In addition Denmark has a population of 5.5 million people and has one of the best locations in Europe for wind generation.
http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html
http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news/vestas-to-axe-more-jobs-as-wind-turbine-manufacturer-forecasts-sales-slump-3508.aspx
In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. Build-up of dead bugs has been shown to halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine, reducing the average power generated by 25% and more. Build-up of salt on off-shore turbine blades similarly has been shown to reduce the power generated by 20%-30%.
Eon Netz, the grid manager for about a third of Germany, discusses the technical problems of connecting large numbers of wind turbines [click here]: Electricity generation from wind fluctuates greatly, requiring additional reserves of “conventional” capacity to compensate; high-demand periods of cold and heat correspond to periods of low wind; only limited forecasting is possible for wind power; wind power needs a corresponding expansion of the high-voltage and extra-high-voltage grid infrastructure; and expansion of wind power makes the grid more unstable. [Click here for a good explanation of why wind-generated power can not usefully contribute to the grid and only causes greater problems, including the use of more “conventional” fuel.]
Despite their being cited as the shining example of what can be accomplished with wind power, the Danish government has cancelled plans for three offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites. Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. Because Danish companies dominate the wind industry, however, the government is under pressure to continue their support. Spain began withdrawing subsidies in 2002. Germany reduced the tax breaks to wind power, and domestic construction drastically slowed in 2004. Switzerland also is cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit. The Netherlands decommissioned 90 turbines in 2004. Many Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind-generated power they buy, because of the instability they cause. For the same reason, Ireland in December 2003 halted all new wind-power connections to the national grid. In early 2005, they were considering ending state support. In 2005, Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections. In 2006, the Spanish government ended — by emergency decree — its subsidies and price supports for big wind. In 2004, Australia reduced the level of renewable energy that utilities are required to buy, dramatically slowing wind-project applications. On August 31, 2004, Bloomberg News reported that “the unstable flow of wind power in their networks” has forced German utilities to buy more expensive energy, requiring them to raise prices for the consumer. [Note, April 2012: State support for industrial wind fluctuates, but the trend noted here has continued.]
A German Energy Agency study released in February 2005 after some delay [click here] stated that increasing the amount of wind power would increase consumer costs 3.7 times more than otherwise and that the theoretical reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved much more cheaply by simply installing filters on existing fossil-fuel plants. A similar conclusion was made by the Irish grid manager in a study released in February 2004 [click here for 172-KB PDF]: “The cost of CO2 abatement arising from using large levels of wind energy penetration appears high relative to other alternatives.”
In Germany, utilities are forced to buy renewable energy at sometimes more than 10 times the cost of conventional power, in France 3 times. In the U.K., the Telegraph has reported that rather than providing cheaper energy, wind power costs the electric companies £50 per megawatt-hour, compared to £15 for conventional power. The wind industry is worried that the U.K., too, is starting to see that it is only subsidies and requirements on utilities to buy a certain amount of “green” power that prop up the wind towers and that it is a colossal waste of resources. The BWEA has even resorted to threatening prominent opponents as more projects are successfully blocked. Interestingly, long-term plans for energy use and emissions reduction by both the U.K. and the U.S. governments do not mention wind [click here for more about this (the article is in Spanish)]. Flemming Nissen, head of development at the Danish utility Elsam, told a meeting in Copenhagen, May 27, 2004, “Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish CO2 emissions.”
http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html
The quote of “thedtroiter” where she expresses the desire to rule the peons via means of the UN has vanished from her Flickr stream.
It is perfectly reasonable that if a theory is being cast as the universal truth thrown in tablets of stone from heaven, then curiosity ought to occur.
The consensus says, for example that there was a big bang some 14 billion years ago that created time and the universe and is still expanding. It is reasonable to question this hypothesis on the basis that time is infinite – such that one cannot conceive of a moment that did not precede another moment, and it might from that be reasonable to assume that the universe is infinite, in which case there was no origin, and furthermore, that infinity cannot expand on itself – it is a paradox.
With climatology there is evidence beyond that proposed by cosmologists, who can only make conjectures, of climate change, its causes and effects, which is perhaps why the debate is more fierce between either positions in climatology. When there is little evidence to support a consensus, and much to overthrow it, then the debate becomes hostile on the basis of data and known physics
If the other side is the insiders, the establishment, the consensus, and our side is criticizing them, then we’re contrary to them, so we’re contrarians. All the word says is that we’re in a minority, not necessarily that we’re inherently “contrary.”
pat says:
September 12, 2012 at 4:24 am
Well, now let’s look at that Max Boykoff. What kind of books about the climate does he write, why, ‘Who speaks for the Climate?’, diddntyaknow. And what does the reviewers say about this book?
Don’t believe me? You know, Franziska Whatshername who hasn’t made up her mind about climate science and will start working with that Boykoff guy whose book gets endorsed by Gore and Hulme, can’t be true you say… well…
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Speaks-Climate-Making-Reporting/dp/052113305X
Impartiality rocks.
Well with regard to the question “What to do with them, I’m sure someone can come up with a final solution.
Sarc/Godwin’s Law
I’d like to redirect Miss Hollender to this discussion, in hope it sheds some light on some issues:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/12/quote-of-the-week-rutan-rocks/
Simply put, if it’s not reproducible, it’s not science. If it’s not testable, it’s not science. If it can’t be falsified, it’s not science. If they hide the data and won’t show you their work, it’s not science. The scientific method is a process that can’t be short-circuited.
Science is not about advocacy or promoting policy. Science is not consensus. Read up on “100 Scientists Against Einstein” (sometimes known as “100 Authors Against Einstein”). Scientists should have no more weight in influencing policy than anyone else.
And please read the post about Burt Rutan, follow the links to his site (http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm), download and read the PDFs documents.
Even if you disagree, you’ll come to better understand the arguments against AGW.
BTW: My handle is a combination of the name of a distopian sci-fi movie starring the late Charleton Heston (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/) and the pop-culture phrase “More Cowbell!” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_cowbell).
~more soylent green!
Ms Hollender:
Thankyou for your response in this thread which you provide at September 12, 2012 at 10:42 am
I write to provide some responses from a person who has made a Guest Article on WUWT and often posts on WUWT. But I will not be accepting your invitation that says
You made a secret study of WUWT that may have included my Guest Article and may have included posts from me, and you then made a public presentation of your findings and opinions which are derived from that study. My response to your public presentation is here – i.e. in public – and not in private conversation.
You take offence at people reporting what you consider to be your “personal life which is none of [their] business”. Sorry, but you did not assess findings of their work. When you decided to make a public presentation of what you assessed of their activities then you made it their business. They each have a right to ask, “Why did she say that about me?” and – as a social scientist – you should be capable of understanding that your background is relevant when answering that question.
And the matter is not resolved by your saying
Indeed, you say
That invites people to ask, “What is her paper likely to say about us?” and that reasonable question also invites people to investigate what you have said in the past. It is not reasonable for you to object to them seeking an answer to that question because their interest is an affront to your “personal life”.
Please remember that you are not studying the results of their work: you are studying what they do and how they do it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
You write
The people about whom you made your presentation had no opportunity to see what you intended to present. Some gratitude for the better treatment afforded to you would have presented yourself in a better light than a whinge about pressure of time.
And please don’t make sophomoric points about your study was of the blog and not what people post on the blog: that is a distinction which defines no real difference.
You condemn yourself when you write
“Contrarian crowd!?”
You say those who don’t share the view you deem to be right are a “contrarian crowd”, and then you take umbrage when members of that “contrarian crowd” regard you with contempt and treat you with ridicule? Sorry, but that is not an academic approach to disagreement. Indeed, it is not an adult approach to disagreement.
You make some good points about “extended peer-review” and how “WUWT works”, but it is a blatant falsehood for you to claim you “do not have an agenda”. The history of your posts on the web (which you complain is improper interest in your “personal life”) and your declaration of those who disagree as “contrarians” provide clear demonstration that you do have an “agenda” whether or not you recognise it.
Indeed, you say
Most people involved in the social sciences would be interested in the “agenda” which induced a young person to make that choice instead of, for example, ‘letting it all hang out’ on a beach.
You state your tenets as being comparison of “two opposing opinions” and structured your “discussion” about them. And you say
Well, much academic study confirms the blindingly obvious, so that cannot be faulted. But you make excuses for your lack of rigour in your method saying
Oh dear! That mixes obvious truth (e.g. “Why NOT WUWT?” and “you have to start somewhere”) with obfuscation. For example, it is not sufficient to answer the question
“why only seven posts and 1600 comments?”
by saying
“This is not a book. It is a study conceptualized for six months of work.”
If the sample is not representative then that “six months of work” is wasted at best and misleading at worst whatever detail you apply to study of that sample. But you do not address the issue of whether your sample is representative.
Finally, I offer a comment on your saying
Secretly studying people then making public pronouncements on their collective behaviour is “attacking” them, and they will fight back. If such studies are the academic field in which you intend to work then you need to grow a thicker skin. And, if – as your past writings suggest – you intend a role in the political world (e.g. the UN) then you need a much, much thicker skin.
I sincerely hope you will reflect on these comments so they can help you with the studies you have undertaken for your education.
Richard