Might apply to the subject:
A top down messaging from the consensus is subject to a number of failures. They bring up separation which would be the skeptics breaking off from a top down hierarchy. The consensus is not purely top down as it also has attributes of a network. What form does the consensus which to assume? Some of it sounds like rigidity. Like one way communication. Questions can be met with assertions of the way it is. Disorganized as the skeptics are, we hope they are more flexible and willing to try lateral communications as opposed to top down ones and to have the more functional network. As an aside, a CO2 controlled system seems similar to the top down hierarchy while a flattened network seems more natural and closer to the answer. The skeptics seem closer to understanding how nature works. That it adapts in many ways to a change of one variable. If CO2 is dominant, then nature has assumed command and control. How likely is that?
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Ragnaar
↧
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Mark Silbert
Thanks for this perspective Willis. The Post set off my BS detector……..seems like for good reason based on your experience.
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Steven Mosher
mathew
“PNS is the sort of junk that sounds good in conversation, but falls apart when written and analyzed. The terms of reference are so poorly defined that you can’t tell from reading whether it says anything in particular about anything in particular.”
without looking at any links. without reading anything outside this page.
please describe in a couple paragraphs what PNS is and cite an example.
Then demonstrate that the terms of reference are poorly defined.
include and example of good terms of reference as an example of how to do things.
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Turbulent Eddie
<b> Or did you mean odontology, like: Bite me?</b>
<i>snorting out loud</i>
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by TJA (@TJA123243453)
I am not sure I understand your post completely, but one thing occurs to me. The “consensus” messaging is top down, and they can’t conceive of a network opposing them successfully that is not top down. So they just assume that there must be a central messaging source at war with their own. That’s where all of the “Koch Bros” stuff comes from, I assume. If you don’t want to accuse them of complete dishonesty.
They are a herd fighting a pack. Herds don’t understand how packs think, packs understand herds very well though.
↧
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by TJA (@TJA123243453)
In fact, it makes complete sense that they would postulate hidden networks of dark money that they can’t see, but the ‘know’ must exist, according to their way of thinking.
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by matthewrmarler
Steven Mosher: without looking at any links. without reading anything outside this page.
please describe in a couple paragraphs what PNS is and cite an example.
Why without reading anything outside this page or looking at any links? We have had plenty of discussions of PNS before.
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by kenfritsch
Kahan is apparently much less concerned about a very vague consensus about the scientific evidence and and the repercussions of that evidence for climate change for public consumption and its use as political propaganda than he is with the perceived failure of that approach – and thus his call for a different approach. He says nothing in the JC quotes about the uncertainty of the science evidence or about point and counter point on its validity. .
The skeptically inclined in the climate debate should be able to see that Kahan is not a serious or deep thinker on this subject and let it go at that. I think we would do better to react to those who might present thoughtful arguments.
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by nickels
↧
↧
Comment on Driving in the dark by The problem with really long-term planning « DON AITKIN
[…] Curry has an interesting essay on this subject, focusing on another American strategist, Richard Danzig, of whom I have heard (he […]
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by Steven Mosher
“Why without reading anything outside this page or looking at any links? We have had plenty of discussions of PNS before.”
Because I doubt that you have a command of the material.
IF you did you would simply answer.
When you have a command of material, when you understand the arguments, you really dont need reference to the source material because the argument exists indpendent of who said it.
That is why references to “what popper said ” or similar attempts to inject
philosophical authority into these debates is pathetic.
So.. quickly son.. write that paragraph..
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by andywest2012
I think Kahan’s problem is ontology. He arbitrarily *defines* the Consensus and its adherents to be completely correct. This robs the analysis of his (well gathered) survey results of all objectivity and a proper logical train of observation to conclusion. One should not define *any* side (there may be more than two) to be wholly correct. Notwithstanding no one can be fully objective, a good analysis should allow the potential truth to ‘float’, and just construct a picture of what social structures and behaviors best fit the data. Then, one can attempt to draw conclusions about which of the sides may better represent reality, which seem more culturally biased, and which are in the strongest alliances. See:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/30/climate-psychologys-consensus-bias/
Judith’s words about Kahan and consensus believers do not say this so formally. But they amount to the same thing, because Kahan rules out any effects for one whole subset of his population from the *beginning* of his analysis, not as a conclusion at the end.
Essentially working backwards from the fixed point of an assumed absolute truth, will very likely bring one to a strange conclusion. Kahan’s is indeed strange; that many millions of US citizens have a rare condition: ‘knowing disbelief’. While this can occur, it requires highly specific development and maintenance. Kahan has not demonstrated this could ever be a mass effect. Allowing the truth to ‘float’, opens the way for an explanation more fitted to the data, which need only invoke good old vanilla cultural and emotional biases; known effects that can influence whole populations.
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by TJA (@TJA123243453)
When you have a command of material, when you understand the arguments, you really dont need reference to the source material because the argument exists indpendent of who said it
That is exactly what turns me off to so many warmie commenters. “Tamino has shown that that is BS.” or whatever. All the while never explaining how or why, nor does the response take the current context of the conversation into account. In my experience arguments on the side of warmies amount to “Reject first, ask rhetorical questions later.”
I don’t know anything about “Post Normal Science” but I do know that pretending that model runs are on a par with observations in terms of experimental science, when the models seem to have very little skill, is some kind of BS.
Sure, models of systems where the physical laws involved and all the aspects of the system are very well known can produce surprising and valid scientific results. I am thinking of the time that a mathematical model found a new property of mirrors, for one example. GCMs do not qualify.
↧
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by TJA (@TJA123243453)
Right. He starts from the perspective not only that the science is rock solid, but that the left wing solutions proposed are unquestionably the only solutions as well.
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by jim2
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Twin peaks - twin lies - Eco-Imperialism
[…] with buoy data, and account for the contamination? Perhaps because, as Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry observed, this latest NOAA analysis “will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama […]
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by catweazle666
Jim D: <i>"I think his opinion is worth more than yours, for example."</i>
His opinion is worth no more and no less than anyone else's.
As to <i>"Millions of people listen to him"</i>, you could say the same of Joseph Stalin too.
↧
↧
Comment on State of the climate debate in the U.S. by Peter Lang
PA,
I am fully aware of the enormous variability of coal quality and properties. I can give you links to many authoritative references on that subject.
However, your comments suggest you are not taking into account how resources and reserves change over time (increase) as new technologies develop. Look how they’ve changed over the past 200 and 200 years, and project forward.
Even better, consider how we have changed our exploration and extraction practices for oil and uranium. The estimated quantity of uranium in the upper continental crust is a good comparison with the Nordhaus number for the total amount of fossil fuel on Earth (6000 Gt C). The total amount of uranium in the upper continental crust is a large figure. But the amount at sufficient concentration and close enough to surface to be economically extracted is a small fraction of that. But the latter figure keeps changing as technology improves *. The quantity in the Earth’s upper continental crust does not. Similarly, the reserves and resources of fossil fuel keep changing, but the estimates of total amount of fossil carbon do not (at least not by much).
* For example, the depth at which we can find it and we can extract it is increasing as we change to remote, in situ-leaching instead of mining.
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by willard (@nevaudit)
> Reject first, ask rhetorical questions later.
For instance:
<blockquote>
PNS is the sort of junk that sounds good in conversation, but falls apart when written and analyzed.
</blockquote>
followed by
<blockquote>
Why without reading anything outside this page or looking at any links?
</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Against ‘consensus’ messaging by jim2
PNS primer, from the article:
…
We can understand ‘Post-Normal Science’ by means of a diagram, where the axes are ‘systems uncertainties’ and ‘decision stakes’. When both are low, we have ‘applied science’, the routine puzzle-solving like the ‘normal science’ described by Thomas Samuel Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. When either is medium, we have ‘professional consultancy’ for which the examples are the surgeon or the senior engineer. Although their work is based on science, they must always cope with uncertainties, and their mistakes can be costly or lethal. It had once been believed that environmental and general policy problems could be managed at this level, but the great issues of global warming and diverse forms of pollution show that framing and implementing policies must frequently be done before all the facts are in. Thus many problems occur in the high-stakes, high-uncertainty region of the diagram, a condition referred to as ‘post-normal.’
But wait. Weren’t we told that Global Warming was established scientific fact? That the world’s experts agreed on its existence? If so how can Global Warming be in the “high-stakes, high-uncertainty region” where post-normal and not normal science rules? In this special Twilight Zone where all the rules are suspended? The only way it can inhabit this region is if there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with it; in other words if “Global Warming” were only a theory and very iffy one at that.
…
What is is this “extended peer community” and what is an “extended fact”? Is it extended like saltwater taffy or extended as in hamburger helper? Like the “values” which drive policy, who chooses these extended peers? What are their qualifications? Can anybody be a peer? All in all, the notion of “post-normal science” seems like a complete contradiction in terms or a perversion of the standard definition of science as commonly understood. It appears to be an elaborate and dishonest attempt to pass off the preferences of a single group as some kind of pseudo-science. There’s a much simpler term for this dishonest phrase: politics. Post-normal science is nothing but a cheap and lying term for a political diktat; for the rule of the self-appointed over everyone else. Whatever truth “Global Warming” may contain it has surely been damaged by its association with this disreputable and vile concept which brazenly casts aside the need for any factual basis and declares in the most unambiguous terms that whatever values it chooses to promote constitutes a truth unimpeachable by reality and a set of values that none dare challenge. Until “post-normal science” is repudiated as a method of proving “global warming” then both must share the same reputation.
…
http://www.principia-scientific.org/what-is-post-normal-science.html
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
