Bishop Hill A Very Important Commission
Jun 24, 2014 Climate: other University College London has set up a grandly-named "Policy Commission on the Communication of Climate Science" and today the team, led by Professor Chris Rapley, has issued its much anticipated report.
Having scanned a few pages, it comes over as just what you'd expect: we learn that GWPF is a "right-wing think tank" and that "Riley Dunlap and Peter Jacques, based on a study of over 100 climate-change-dismissive books, identify strong links to conservative think-tanks". (The latter paper was covered at BH here, where I noted its bonkers allegation that my publisher is "overtly conservative"). There is also an approving link to Suzanne Goldenberg's specious claim that we sceptics have a billion dollars a year to spend and another to Skeptical Science. Still, this sort of idiocy is no doubt good enough for a Very Important Policy Commission.
But these are peripheral points. The guts of the report is the usual climate-communication navel-gazing enlivened only by a marginally less defensive posture with regard to the misdeeds of climate scientists:
Accounts of [Climategate] and the associated ‘hockey stick controversy’ can make uncomfortable reading for those with high expectations for standards of scientific conduct.
A strong public backlash is to be expected if a mismatch is exposed between expectations and reality. A salutary example is provided by the public dismay and loss of confidence following the release in 2009 of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which cast the behaviours of leading climate scientists in a poor light (‘Climategate’).
The recommendations are equally dull. For example, making sure that scientists enjoy a privileged position in the policymaking process:
Decision-making should not be through the ‘linear’ mode, characterized as ‘truth speaks to power’, but by a collective process (‘co-production’) in which all interested parties, including the public, play their part.
...a new learned society:
New organisational mechanisms are required to support the public discourse on climate science and to achieve necessary professional reforms – notably a forum for active public discussion and a professional body for climate scientists.
...but more amusingly a new "narrative":
A climate science ‘meta-narrative’ is required that delivers the results of climate science in a manner that is accurate, engaging, coherent, relevant, and which – by making clear the limits of certainty and knowledge – is robust against new discoveries and unfolding events.
Someone more cynical than me might suggest that climate science has already shown itself well able to, ahem, "deal with" new discoveries. Indeed, it has sometimes appeared to be entirely immune to them.
Reader Comments (68)
The 'meta-narrative' is not the cure. It is the problem. Stick to science.
I find the assertion that sceptics have a more 'coherent message' bizarre (p74-75):
If the lack of a single narrative is bemoaned in the first paragraph, what exactly is the 'narrative with which [the dismissers] strongly disagree' in the second?
Ruth Dixon: A coherent question from a dissenter, thus proving their point! More seriously, there's confusion at so many levels here. Sure, there's precious little coherence in 'those who dismiss the messages and policy implications of climate science'. But what we question is even less coherent.
Ruth, this myth was promoted by Rapley in his "Time to raft up" article 2 years ago: "Evidently, the voices of dismissal are trumping the messages of science. A significant factor in their success is an effective communications strategy, which the climate-science community has yet to learn or use....The climate-dismissive think tanks and organizations have been effective because they have understood and put into practice the insights of social science. They deliver simple messages that are crafted to agree with specific value sets and world views. Their flow of commentary is persistent, consistent.."
This is of course a complete load of bollards. Climate sceptics are an incoherent shambles.
As mentioned at my blog, I wrote to Rapley after that article, saying "You claim that the sceptics have an effective communication strategy, but you know perfectly well that this is not true - how many climate sceptics have editorials in Nature? You say that sceptics present a persistent, consistent message, spread by the media, but the climate science message is fragmented. Not true - there's a very wide range of sceptic views, often quite inconsistent, and they are not represented in the media such as the BBC...."
I got a one line reply saying that he noted my comments - but he seems to have ignored them.
Richard, [124] is Oreskes, Merchants of Doubt! And "dismissive" is their preferred d-word.
I'm certainly not prepared to look to find out what [124] is but from the little I've seen quoted it seems they've backed off some way both from 'denier' and its attendant bonkers conspiracy theories, as the Bish would put it. Is that fair, anyone with more time on their hands?
If so, it's a pity John Kerry and Barack Obama didn't get the memo.
Hey, love the time travel Paul! "Before you call I will answer." It had to be something bonkers like Oreskes but, happily, relegated to a footnote and mostly disregarded in the main text. In line with what the Bish said originally
the normal mood music about Climategate as crime scene requiring the good offices of the UK anti-terrorism's finest, vile denialism and the big oil conspiracy seems muted from these excerpts. Two cheers for Rapley and co for that?
"Policy Commission on the Communication of Climate Science" = Ministry of Truth
..so obvious that no one has bothered to state it yet
Here is an interesting article about quantum mechanics.
Sheldon Goldstein, a professor of mathematics, physics and philosophy at Rutgers University and a supporter of pilot-wave theory, blames the “preposterous” neglect of the theory on “decades of indoctrination.” At this stage, Goldstein and several others noted, researchers risk their careers by questioning quantum orthodoxy.
http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/
"The Behavioural Change Wheel identifies three factors that are necessary and sufficient prerequisites for the performance of a specified volitional behaviour. These are motivation (the brain processes that energise and direct behaviour), capability (these may be physical or psychological, the latter being the knowledge and skills necessary for the behaviour) and opportunity (the physical and social context that enables or promotes the behaviour)."
Means, Motive, and Opportunity.
They're getting paid for this?!
They've reviewed their science and discovered an ample supply of turds - but found them extraordinarily difficult to polish.
Clearly, research into new and more effective turd-polishing technology is essential.
Went to the UCL event last night. The good bishop has it right. We all got a free report - at the taxpayers' expense of course.
They were lobbying in effect to set up yet another grand organisation to help 'dialogue'... more wasted money.
They were dismissive of adversarial discussion - used the usual 'facilitator' jargon. Just the old Hegelian 'dialectic
Thesis + antithesis = synthesis. Proper science won't work like that.
In fact adversarial discussion/debate is essential in science. They are of course scared of it because the facts might just get a hearing.
A lady called Tamsin something was on the panel. Met her at Waport's Bristol lecture. She treated me then as if I were in need of therapy - very sweetly of course. Yet she claimed she was a luke-warmist. Beneath it all the drum beat of approaching catastrophe unless the 'saints' of AGW CACC could 'save' the planet.
Sorry I came across that way Philip. I thought we were just having a discussion about why we had different views. If I came across as patronising or similar, perhaps it was because I was trying to demonstrate I was listening to your views but came across "caring concerned"?!
Also I didn't describe myself as a lukewarmer - I said I was part of a group of moderates - including mainstream scientists, lukewarmers and policy sceptics - who were trying to find common ground and discuss the reasons for our differences with civility.
I also said the report was a step in the direction in some respects (on insufficient denouncing of alarmist representations of science, human flaws of scientists) but also criticised the "brand" and professional body parts as looking like a PR job.
I also think your comment implies I was talking about saving the planet, when I believe you were talking about other panel members and/or the audience.
On twitter John Kennedy notes that the text on the web page has changed and is now more readable (though so far the printed report hasn’t changed). In particular the much-ridiculed term “meta-narrative” has been dropped.
Original version: "There is a need for an operational means for the general public and climate scientists to engage in dialogue, and for the provision of a coherent ‘meta-narrative’ of climate science that conveys the big picture and provides the context for discussion of the results, their uncertainties and their implications. "
New version: "There is a need for the general public and climate scientists to engage in constructive dialogue, and for climate scientists to convey a big picture that provides a context for the discussion of new scientific results and their consequences. The authentic and personal voice of climate scientists in this process is essential for the general public to establish trust in the findings of climate science."
"The IPPR are a truly vile New Labour connected right wing corporate think tank that was very heavily involved in promoting global warming through lying."
Nice try Smiffy, but the notion that a right-wing corporate think tank could, or would, set a branch up in Newcastle is beyond risible. Up is not down, IPRR are a left wing think tank, "with strong ties to the Labour party that claims to produce progressive ideas committed to upholding values of social justice, democratic reform and environmental sustainability." From its own press release.
"Dismissive" of what has turned out to be foolish climate hype by rent seeking twits.
I like this kind of "dismissiveness".
geronimo - right wink think tank with deep connections to the American military in industrial complex.
Commission on National Security in the 21st Century from the Institute for Public Policy Research
Supporting the Commission
ippr would like to thank the following organisations, who are supporters of all the Commission's activities:
EDS
Raytheon
We would also like to thank the following for their support of specific research streams feeding into the Commission’s deliberations:
UK Department for International Development – conflict prevention and peacebuilding
Swedish Foreign Ministry - conflict prevention and peacebuilding
Booz Allen Hamilton – energy security and protection of critical national infrastructure
De La Rue – borders and identity management
http://www.ippr.org.uk/security/index.asp?id=3109
IPRR right wing! too funny
how many right wing think tanks have Neil Kinnock and Shirley Williams on the policy advisory council
http://www.ippr.org/people/policy-advisory-council/
and Will Shaw, director heading up climate change. training ground for Labour MP's
http://www.ippr.org/people/