Bishop Hill Climategate: the role of the social sciences
Mar 22, 2013 Climate: other A new paper in Climatic Change looks at Climategate and wonders whether upholders of the IPCC consensus haven't been shooting themselves in the foot. It's paywalled, so I will quote relatively extensively.
'Climategate: the role of the social sciences', by Myanna Lahsen of the Brazilian Institute for Space Research, opens with an absolute howler
...there was a well-organized PR campaign ready to go at the time the emails were released (Pearce 2010a, 180), aimed at shaping public perceptions of ACC and undermine efforts to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases.
Following the citation to its source one finds Pearce quoting Michael Mann as saying that there appeared to have been a well orchestrated PR campaign. Thus one moves from a statement about appearances (and from a scientist who enjoys a reputation, even among his supporters, for making wild unsubstantiated statements) to a statement of certainty. Thus myths are propagated; has anyone ever presented any evidence of a "well-organized PR campaign"?
This shambles aside, the paper still has some interesting things to say, although one has to wade through the double whammy of the contorted language favoured by many social scientists and the need for the author to present an acceptable front on AGW by constant reference to "contrarians" and "backlash scientists". Notably, however, Lahsen draws the line at "denier" and "denialist", noting that these terms
are used unreflexively by many social scientists, [to] foreclose the facts and – together with the pervasive tendency to collapse contrarianism and skepticism – erase a space for legitimate questioning of the consensus position...
Oreskes and Conway are also criticised. Their work, while "carefully researched" also "illustrates current scholarly literature’s avoidance of critical analysis of the scientific mainstream"; its tendency to divide the climate world into two competing camps obscures dissenting views within the mainstream and "space for legitimate doubt and questioning outside of the IPCC consensus position". Note the recognition of legitimate doubt - a step forward I feel.
The curious need to badmouth dissenters while recognising the failings of the upholders is stark at the start of the conclusions section:
Advocates of concern about [AGW] commonly attribute instances of weakened public faith in science, and in the IPCC, to the backlash coalition. The premise is that the public is duped by backlash actors. Certainly, the backlash involves deep and problematic deception and manipulations that undermine democratic processes and informed decision-making. But the US public is right to believe that scientific experts still are arguing about ACC in terms of its likely extent and impacts. They are even smart to believe that, because they see beyond what they are being told by powerful and prestigious scientists and analysts; they may rightly perceive logical inconsistency when advocates of concern, including some of the authors discussed above, that scientific research always involves doubt, that scientists by nature are inclined to question, that scientific findings involve evidence the details of which remain unclear and can be falsified by new discoveries and, on the other hand, suggest that the science is settled and that scientists all agree about [AGW] – as if dissent does not exist, also outside of the small faction of contrarians.
This is undoubtedly correct. Many sceptics come to scepticism precisely because messages of consensus are so obviously dishonest when applied to a system as complex and as ill-understood as the climate.
Lahsen goes on to suggest a way out of climate science's mess:
An overarching strategic decision for climate-concerned scientists and scholars is whether to continue the long-standing foreclosure of facts or dare to show the social underpinnings of the production and use of climate science upholding concern about ACC. I argue that the latter is needed, and that it can serve to create space and warranted legitimacy for questioning of (aspects of) the science. Ironically, foreclosure of facts and idealization of IPCC science heighten vulnerability to contrarian attacks, and these representational practices increase public distrust when chinks in the armor are revealed.
Amen to that.
Reader Comments (81)
Latimer
here in Sheffield we are just enjoying the biggest dump of global warming of the winter. And I know Sir John will call us all saloon bar pundits but the reality is that we have a choice between using over-expensive energy or freezing to death. I know he would rather we choose the latter but f*ck him. I have the c/h turned up and I am enjoying the sight of the global warming falling gently from the sky.
Keep up the good work Latimer. I aways make a point of reading your offerings. You are a good man. I would vote for you! Ha ha
Mar 22, 2013 at 11:28 AM | Dennis Ambler
There appears to be a word missing from your quote. I have inserted it in bold in the correct place.
How about 'Sarentropy'?
=======
Social science - that is one of the fundamental underlying problems of AGW.
AGW?
ACC?
ACP?
ACD?
Anthropogenic Recursive 'Science' Enthusiasts, more like it.
@Sara etc
You are far too kind in your remarks. I spent a happy year working in Sheffield a long time ago, but now restrict myself to occasional visits to Hillsborough (where my team usually gets beat). So your vote would be better used on a more deserving candidate. Perhaps somebody who is not totally in thrall to the warmists?
I really hope that your change of moniker doesn't imply that you have actually found an instance where Entropy doesn't win. All those hours poring over Peter Atkins's fiendish statistical thermodynamics problems surely cannot have been in vain....
Martin Brumby @ 6:48:
I recommend sticking with AGW, since maintaining "The Narrative" requires adjusting the language as a means of moving the goal posts and ACC is an example of that. That said, "anthropogenic climate perturbation," has a ring to it, although I may need some instruction on what it actually means. It also has the advantage of being coined by jferguson on this website.
Latimer
the change of moniker was for rhoda's benefit
and as you will see did not last
unfortunately when I was 9 years old a boy came up to me in the school playground and asked that all important question 'Wednesday or United?' I think it was Tuesday, and so I was united.
hence the slight variation on the moniker
and sorry to say entropy still beats me every time
@Sara etc
I'm sure it is OK round here to be a Blade. Just so long as it is not in a Hockey Stick.
BTW I don't support Wednesday. Just get beaten by them,.
"I've said this before on my comments to various blog posts on here over the years. The promotion of AGW by the UN, IPCC and governments has little to do with science and vastly more to do with social issues and the desire to see some form of redistribution of wealth...." --Mactheknife
During an interview with Germany’s NZZ Online Sunday, UN official Ottmar Edenhofer declared, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
From the horse's mouth.
http://real-agenda.com/2010/11/25/u-n-official-climate-issue-is-for-wealth-redistribution/
theduke: Perturbation is a small change in a physical system according to the dictionary. That's what I like so much about John's ACP. It doesn't say whether the change is up or down, whether it's on temperature of precipitation, whether warmer or cooler, just that it's small in relation to the system concerned. Surely none of denies that man has some effect on climate. But it's only a perturbation. This should go global :)
Martin Brumby: Well, it is squeaky bum time for the alarmists :)
Sara, thanks. I've disabled capslock now, so I can handle it. Or cutnpaste.
"the Brazilian Institute for Space Research"
Who knew?
Ian E
"I guess they will have to move on to ACD"
Only one small step to OCD. Seems apposite...
Richard,
I may be imputing an unrecognized meaning to perturbation, but I feel that the word implies that the system perturbed might be a stable one.
I'm entirely too ignorant to have an opinion on the subject of tipping points, but I am very sceptical that there might be one in the temperature (or better, total energy) excursion that we are in the midst of anywhere near the range we might anticipate.
Do proper scientists actually read that kind of waffly paper? Does it affect them at all?
Mar 22, 2013 at 2:30 PM James Evans
As I have commented before, someone once pointed out that if a subject has the word "science" in its title, it is probably not science.
Richard: at 8:17 PM, Thanks. I like it. It fits my view of what's going on perfectly, although it does appear to be moving gradually in one direction toward warmer temperatures. Otoh, wouldn't it be interesting if we had five, ten or 15 years of progressively cooler temperatures? That would definitely perturb a certain group of people.
Off to look up "perturbation". . .
jferguson: In my internal dictionary/thesaurus it doesn't imply stability but it often connotes it. And that's very good. Because, as I admitted to Mosher the other day, I don't know for certain that if we burn all fossil fuel it won't have any net negative effect. (Note the system has now expanded to include humanity and all its social and economic systems.) I still think perturbation is best. So far we've only seen a small increase of globally averaged temperature anomaly since 1850 and, much more important, deaths from extreme climate events are down, big-time, since 1920.
When people realise you have doubts about what has been portrayed as climate orthodoxy they often come out with the most stupid of questions: "So you don't believe in global warming at all?" My answer: It depends over what period. Since the Little Ice Age there has been a small amount of warming, yes. As for climate change, yes, that has always happened, over all timescales, and is still happening. As far as what mankind is responsible for, I believe in man-made climate perturbation. We do affect climate, including through our changing use of land. Perturbation means the total effects, on rainfall as well as temperatures, are small. There is certainly no solid evidence of a crisis.
From what I read here, this sounds like yet another attempt to teach better, more successful tactics to an unsuccessful but essentially correct ideology. It appears to work in a model framework of stereotypical warring parties, one of whom is clearly closer to the truth but just doesn't know how to manage to convey its basic truths in a convincing manner without shooting itself in the foot.
What am I missing?
The emails that are "Climategate" give quite a clear demonstration of the detrimental effect "social science" can have on scientific rigour.
Richard, "connote" it is. i knew it was in there somewhere put couldn't put the word to it. Your views and mine on the perturbation(s) are, might I suggest, coincident.
best regards
An old Sociologist told me once, over a few drinks, that Sociology could be defined as 'an obscure glimpse of the perfectly bleedin' obvious' ; this current paper under discussion here has refined obscurity to an art form.
Reprint at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/social_construction.html
Original Paper at http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/v84152h64m5r36t5/
Mar 22, 2013 at 11:28 AM Dennis Ambler
"Global Warming: The Social Construction of a Quasi-Reality?"
When the history of the Great Delusion comes to be written, your paper will be an important reference. It deserves to be more widely known.
(Not sure why there is a question mark in the title.)
What are the differences between a 'quasi-reality', a stack of crap, a fantasy and a pack of lies?
Myanna Lahsen appears to start from the perspective of the ultimate truth of CAGW and the theory of an organized movement to discredit that truth. This is why criticism of the consensus she sees as a threat to democracy. It is all the more remarkable that she recognizes that some ignore legitimate issues, and demonize opponents. Further, Lahsen (in contradiction to the ultimate truth of CAGW) accepts that there may be unresloved questions in science.
The solution is to "allow" criticism. This seems more akin to Gorbachev's original policy of glasnost - controlled criticism in a non-democracy. The alternative is pluralism. That is funding alternative was of looking at science and policy. Parallel to this should be developing ways of evaluating scientific evidence independent of the beliefs and biases we may hold.
I think that one difference is that, to tell lies, you have to know roughly what the truth is.
You can produce the others without knowing or caring what the truth is or while being completely deluded.
Appearances are not always deceiving.
It is said that psychologists get into that line of 'study' in order to satisfy their own sense of delusion and failure. True to form, what they write subsequently mirrors their perpetual state of delusion and failure. It's all in their heads.
Much has disappeared. Is it a superinjunction?
What are the differences between a 'quasi-reality', a stack of crap, a fantasy and a pack of lies?
Quasi-reality. Using a very limited worldview and assuming that is all there is.
eg. I live on an island,with no other land in sight. Therefore only the island & the ocean exist.
A stack of crap. Using very questionable "scientific" data to sell your worldview.
eg Micheal Manns' hokey stick.
A fantasy. Seeing a specific worldview you want to create and thinking it is ok to lie to achieve it.
eg "The ends justify the means." You would think all the past warcrimes trials would discourage this....
Pack of lies. Knowing your data is bad, knowing your doing the morally wrong thing. And not caring.
eg. Shutting down coal fired power stations and having people die in winter because there is not enough power , or not enough affordable power to keep people warm.
Speaking of climategate, where is the third tranche, and why is it not being covered more?