• Science no longer curiosity-driven but potentially of great importance for policy definition and social practice.
• High stakes,
high uncertainty.
• Other motives than quest for “truth”.
• … is definitely in a post-normal stage.
• It is heavily politicized.
• The distinction between activists and scientists is blurred.
• The community is split between a large majority of “pro’s” and a small minority of “con’s”.
• The “con’s” are EVIL.
• … is it also in a post-sensible phase?
• Dennis Bray defines post-sensible science as follows; “when moral entrepreneurship begins to infuse the objectivity of scientific thought. This is not limited to any particular perspective but rather to the process of dissemination of scientific information excessively shaped by any moral persuasion.”
• Spiral of ongoing practice of slight exaggeration results in the formation of significant misinformation in the public realm.
• Scientists are part of the public realm, and experts only in a rather narrow field.
Examples of overselling
premature claims
• The hockey stick
• The link of disaster damages and ongoing climate change.
• The claim of universal agreement to the IPCC assessment among climate scientists (the Oreskes case)
Scientific debate constrained by …
• concern for the “evil” “skeptics”, and
• concern for the “good” process of “Kyoto”.
• Thus, the set of scientific knowledge claims enshrined in the IPCC reports must not be doubted.
• Any failure of a key statement of the IPCC assessment reports is made to represent a failure of the entire concept of anthropogenic climate change.
• Any statement, which may be used by the skeptics, is fended off.
Socio-politically constrained scientific discourse
• The historical lesson of the emergence of new, with the contemporary scientific paradigm hardly consistent evidence, is not acknowledged in favor a socio-political correctness.
• Science is downgraded to a repair-shop of contemporary knowledge claims.
• Under the veil of socio-political benevolence, a variety of subjective self-centered agendas are pursued, and deviating, scientifically possible valid approaches are fended off.
• This practice is unsustainable and damages the social institution “science”.
Conclusion
• Science is a social process.
• Long-term acceptance of explanations (theories) is mostly based on evidence and logic, but on short time scales, social arguments and pre-scientific contexts are also important.
• We need to confront claims-making with the same vigor, independently if the claims serve skeptic’s or Kyoto-agendas.
• Break the power of “alarmists” disguised as scientists.
• Engage “skeptics” in a constructive dialogue.
Just for the fun of it ….
… who are the beneficiaries when the perception of anthropogenic, catastrophic climate change prevails?
• climate scientists, who are rewarded with attention, public recognition, careers and funding.
• insurance companies, who find their clients more willing to proactively pay for perceived enhanced risks.
• green political movements, who use the threat of severe man-made climatic interruptions as most useful argument to push other environmental agendas as well.
I hope that title is not too adacious. We have been discussing hockeysticks every once and a while here, you know, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm about the alleged global temperatures of the last millenium.
Darn You are right indeed A full 0.04 degrees C per century.
