Wednesday
Dec292010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill HSI citations
Dec 29, 2010 Climate: HSI A couple more citations of The Hockey Stick Illusion have appeared in the academic literature.
'Science at the Crossroads: Fact or Fiction?' is a review article in the Journal of Medical Biochemistry by David Goldberg of the University of Toronto. Goldberg looks at the pressures of modern science and how these can sometimes lead to misconduct.
The second citation is from Jörg Friedrichs of the University of Oxford. Entitled 'Peak energy and climate change: the double bind of post-normal science' it is in press at the journal, Futures. The abstract can be seen here.
Reader Comments (30)
Agh! Not the "Post Normal Science" stuff again! Oh well, it's another pointer to the book Bish. Mine is awaiting my return to Cypus in February! Imagine, sun bed by the pool, free flow booze and the wife rubbing in the tan lotion (I am allowed certain fantacies!).
Have a great Hogmanay Bish. Wish I could first foot!
OT Bish but what price windmills now considering the huge magnets in the things...
http://asiancorrespondent.com/44963/china-shrinks-rare-earths-export-quota/
From Friedrichs -
Am I missing something? What constitutes an "unvarnished vision of the truth" for an intractable problem? Perhaps it is to say in an unvarnished manner that the problem is intractable.
Grant...It's the word Vision, that concerns me! More PMS! My wife keeps asking me why I post on womens bodily cycle stuff!
Looks like whitewash, tastes like whitewash- logically, its whitewash.
'When scientific misconduct is thought to occur, there is no well-defined instrument for its investigation. Ad hoc procedures spring into existence varying from one institution to another (66). Within the institution, there tends to be a closing of the ranks to protect its reputation, if not that of the person under suspicion....
The anomalies that plague ad hoc committees established to review scientific misconduct are further illustrated by the composition and operation of those set up to investigate the Climategate affair and that have reported their findings that essentially exonerate those under suspicion of misconduct. Two were established by the University of East Anglia, home of the Climate Research Unit and its director Dr Phil Jones who was at the heart of the scandal. The first was chaired by Lord Oxburgh who is known for his business interests in wind farms and green capital investment firms. Although it was initially intended that the material to be examined was to be selected by the Royal Society, it was actually submitted by the University with the approval of Dr Jones. The second committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, and was more concerned with behavioural aspects of the case. Jones was surprisingly cleared of perverting the peer-review process mainly on the basis of his own assertions. The issue of breach of Freedom of Information Legislation (FOIL) arising from the deliberate deletion of e-mails that might be subject to such enquiries from the Press and those scientists with contrary opinion was not even discussed in the final report. The membership of both committees virtually excluded any climate change sceptic, and emails obtained by access to FOIL by the press revealed a vigorous campaign by the climate change lobby to achieve this very goal (68, 69).'
PMS? Postmenopausal Science?
David Goldberg:
This is one of the better articulations of why scientists should not stick their noses in policy matters. Because the moment they do, they are no longer expert scientists. Rather, they become amateur economists, politicians, moralists and ideologues like millions of other ordinary citizens who have to rely on conjecture and intuition.
Hilarious...
"Mainstream energy science, on the one hand, has refused to engage in post-normal science....Consequently, the pressing issue of future energy scarcity has been kept from the public agenda."
"Official climate science, on the other hand, has embraced post-normal science....(IPCC) has been uniquely successful in placing climate change on the public agenda...the inherent ambiguities of post-normal science have plunged climate science into a deep legitimacy crisis."
He seems to be saying Mainstream energy science is in denial regarding energy scarcity since they left it to the "fringe" instead of going all "post normal" which would have brought it onto the public agenda, but that going "post normal" would have plunged it into a "legitimacy crisis" anyway.
Ant this "legitimacy crisis" is because people prefer "denial and self-deception to an unvarnished vision of the truth". "In such cases, scientists are in a double bind: they are damned if they do and doomed if they don’t engage in post-normal science."
I disagree wholeheartedly. The author seems to think "post normal science" is an "unvarnished vision of the truth". This is complete BS. An "unvarnished version of the truth" would be applying the scientific method, and therein lies the escape of this "double bind" for the scientists, abandon all notions of "post normal science" and stick to the science or you will suffer a prolonged "legitimacy crisis".
People aren't in "denial" about an "unvarnished vision of the truth" people are recognising post normal science for the bullshit it is.
As GrantB has already commented, this doesn't look too promising:
"Most people prefer denial and self-deception to an unvarnished vision of the truth when intractable problems such as peak energy and climate change are at stake."
Doubtless the author is taking a potshot at so-called climate sceptics, but I would say the warmistas are the masters of self-deception because their vision of the truth is one of falsehood and denial.
'Futures' is the journal that loves and is loved by Jerry Ravetz, the instigator of Post-Normal Science - he has an article in the latest edition of 'Futures': 'Feral Futures: Zen & Aesthetics'. Ravetz is on the editorial board, and the Editor-in-Chief is Ziauddin Sardar, trustee of the Muslim Institute, who has written on 'Islamic Futures: The Shape of Ideas to Come', 'Why Do People Hate America' and 'American Dream, Global Nightmare'. He is a social-constructivist who believes that the direction of science should be determined by the social and political values of societies and of those who fund science.
Post normal science? Is that science with all the science removed?
Like others I was fascinated by:
As I read this I felt once again that the whole exercise will fail. When it comes to energy and weather ordinary people sure want "an unvarnished vision of the truth." They've learned that science, properly practised, is an amazingly reliable provider of such to live by. But that's the old-fashioned, falsifiable stuff. Post-normal science has nothing to offer. Although it's disturbing what academics for DFID at Oxford will get up to (admittedly without reading the full paper and learning what Friedrichs had to say about THSI) the internal contradictions here are far too great to carry weight.
Thanks also ScientistForTruth for the pointer to Ziauddin Sardar - or http://www.ziauddinsardar.com/ to his friends. He's clearly doing the right stuff vis-a-vis the Koran and science. But, with the best will in the world, there are contradictions aplenty there as well.
I think PNS is like a freshly baked blueberry pie, that prior to serving has been placed in a driveway and run over. Those who can't focus on the essence of the pie will have a prolonged "legitimacy crisis".
Having done an assignment on it way back at the uni, I am somewhat familiar with Kuhn's concept of 'normal science'. In fact, it is one of the sources of my CAGW skepticism. But what is Post Normal Science? I feel none the wiser even after reading about it, and the more I read, the more that 'post normal' bit reads like 'post-modern'.
@ScientistForTruth
...a social-constructivist who believes that the direction of science should be determined by the social and political values of societies and of those who fund science.
That is a worry. Maybe Post Normal Science is an elaborate hoax. If Alan Sokal can do it, why not others?
Jörg Friedrichs:
Since he puts it that way...
"Post-normal science" is bad science fiction.
OT -- Enjoy the thaw, what there is of it. Micheal Gallagher says the foxes are moving toward the farm houses. It's gonna get cold again.
The mailman speaks
Don Pablo, you are not baiting me again, are you? You know how strongly I feel about that Irish and his luck.
The "luck of the Irish" perhaps, but you can't argue with the snow swirling around your window, can you? And don't forget -- it is as "scientific" as counting tree rings and running bogus computer simulations :)
Also OT but wonderful: Polar bears get the better of spy cameras. Was I alone rooting for the bears against the Beeb, though my own pictures be cut short? Who predicted this set of reactions? The same boffins that tell us exactly how far the same species will be able to adapt in a completely uncertain future? No, as the filmmakers here completely get, the wonder of this stuff is how much we can't predict. Which is no insult to science - here's the boundary, result of honesty in science, gateway to wonder. Feynman got it and it's time we did.
And what material for a 2010 farewell from Josh!
Don Pablo, it is not exactly the snow whirling around my window where I live. But, yes, this summer has so far been positively chilly for those in shorts and t-shirts. Two days ago, I pulled on a jumper for a whole day!
"economists and politicians" - seems a little harsh on economists.
Can someone explain the difference between Post Normal Science and religion? (I'm asking a serious question). Is the term Post Normal Science simply a linguistic ploy to distract people from the real objective -- making environmentalism the state sponsored religion of the west?
A bit OT, but I note that the Oxfam website contains a pre-prepared e-mail to lobby Huhne with:
"You’ve promised to work with other governments and find $100 billion to help poor countries adapt to climate change. There are lots of ways to raise this money without squeezing essential UK services. Now’s the time to step up and push for international action.
You can start with these two smart solutions.
1. Bring in a Robin Hood Tax
2. Push for an international tax on shipping and aviation emissions.
Thank you."
Oxfam wants to tax us and to make imports and exports more expensive.
They also have Chrissie cards out with "Climate chnage costs lives" scaremongering.
Aren't they supposed to be about feeding the hungry?
Dear Mr. Montford,
I read your book and congratulate you on birthing a work of real importance to society. It is a book that ought to be required reading for every voter ( were that it was within my power!)
I was particularly impressed by your meticulous documentation, and your useful and illuminating footnotes. I don't want to contemplate the labor that went into writing the book ( or that expended by its protagonists ). That the exposure of misdoings required the dogged and truly extraordinary determination of Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick is a sorry tale.
Living, as I do, in the "Soviet Socialist People's Republic of Maryland" (USA), I was disappointed, though not entirely surprised, to discover that no library in the state possessed a copy. An interstate library loan became necessary. That is a sad state of affairs in a jurisdiction that prides itself on the presence of self-proclaimed world-class educational institutions.
I have recommended the book loudly, repeatedly, high and wide.
Thank you.
The politicisation of charities. See this from "War on Want" - defeat climate change by destroying capitalism:
http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns/trade-justice/more/watch/17013-change-trade-not-our-climate
:)
It is also the richest state in the country...
Dear Bish,
The JMB article was a real scorcher, even if the author is a bit leftie oriented.
I was not aware of this, for example, about the cloner Hwang woo-Suk
Slightly OT but inspired by post here, and Jorg's rubbish statement "post-normal science has been introduced... where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent” ...[but] Most people prefer denial and self-deception to an unvarnished vision of the truth when intractable problems such as... climate change are at stake."
I emailed the following to Positive News on the 26th. Waiting for a response. Will keep you posted. This is an important outreach to greenies that I used to read regularly. They could either feel this is an offer they cannot refuse, or... refuse and be damned.
Hello Positive News.
About two years ago I did a U-turn from believer in manmade global warming to sceptic. It meant I could not continue my work with Transition Towns, much to my sorrow - though I am still friends with Transition folk here in Glastonbury.
How would you like an article on the positive side of doing a U-turn that was difficult and cut me off from former friends? An article on the positive side of standing up as a loner? An article on the positive side of saying "sorry, I was wrong" (a la 12-steps programme)? An article on the positive side of checking the science for oneself? An article on the positive side of caring about truth?
You can check our website for both committment to green values, positive attitude, and depth of research of Climate Science. I do hope you respond positively!!!
bob
Is the term Post Normal Science simply a linguistic ploy to distract people from the real objective -- making environmentalism the state sponsored religion of the west?
No, they want everybody to bow down to it -- east and west alike.
Not entirely OT:
"All of this is stupid, of course, but it is a valuable reminder that many who call themselves scientists will sell out science in a heartbeat in order to advance a political agenda. Global warming alarmism is another example of this phenomenon."