To understand where Glikson is coming from you have to familiarise yourselves with post normal science, as postulated by Jerry Ravetz and honed by Mike Hulme, founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research located at the University of East Anglia, home of the CRU email leaks.

There is an excellent posting by Jerome Ravetz at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/climategate-plausibility-and-the-blogosphere-in-the-post-normal-age/, as he attempts to (partially) whitewash the CRU scandal. There is an excellent counter point of view at http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/

Readers are also recommended to view the comments at both sites, especially Willis Eschenbach (23:53:22) at whatsupwiththat.

Both sceptics and alarmists alike need to understand post normal science. Here is a taste:

“The concept of post-normal science goes beyond the traditional assumptions that science is both certain and value-free…The exercise of scholarly activities is defined by the dominance of goal orientation where scientific goals are controlled by political or societal actors…Scientists’ integrity lies not in disinterestedness but in their behaviour as stakeholders. Normal science made the world believe that scientists should and could provide certain, objective factual information…The guiding principle of normal science – the goal of achievement of factual knowledge - must be modified to fit the post-normal principle…For this purpose, post-normal scientists should be capable of establishing extended peer communities and allow for ‘extended facts’ from non-scientific experts…In post-normal science, the maintenance and enhancement of quality, rather than the establishment of factual knowledge, is the key task of scientists… Involved social actors must agree on the definition of perceptions, narratives, interpretation of models, data and indicators…scientists have to contribute to society by learning as quickly as possible about different perceptions…instead of seeking deep ultimate knowledge.”

The IPCC’s reports into AGW are post normal science.

More rubbish in the name of science, raredog. Rubbish it is, & science it sure aint.

I have no objection in scientists going off & playing silly buggers. They can go for it any time they like, except when the public purse is paying for it. There is no reason why we should subsidise their games, & we should definately not depend on their ethics. That is a recipe for disaster, in view of the exposed trend.

qanda, thank you, but I can’t agree that the NZCCC “made the NZ warming trend go away”. Their scientists only had the raw data which, whilst it showed no warming, would have to be legitimately subjected to an SOA to reflect anomalies and variables.

The link you provided has already been reviewed and rejected by NZCCC; this is explained at the link shown.

(See results posted Feb. 7 at nzclimatescience.net).

NZCCC has repeatedly requested the SOA that was applied to NIWA’s report in order to reproduce and validate NIWA’s report. You will note that NIWA has now acknowledged that they don’t in fact have the SOA for this series. NIWA has agreed to develop and apply a new SOA and when applied, it might indeed show warming.

In the end it’s not about science, it’s about the probity and processes by which the science is achieved. If as a skeptic, I cannot see the probity, I cannot accept the results. I’m not a scientist, but I do understand process engineering. There are many who don’t understand the significance of the process and consequently are too ready to accept “invalid” output.

I emphasize “invalid”, not necessarily “wrong”.

qanda, I’ve tried so hard to explain how I personally respond to such comments as a “studiously ignorant climate change denier”. examinator would have us believe that I’m “thin skinned”. I spent 45 years in multi-national corporate in 29 countries and attended 5 Uni’s; do you really think that makes me thin skinned?

My post was not an excuse for skepticism; it is an open and honest explanation for it. Why I, and perhaps many more like me, am uncomfortable with how this science is produced. Every single revelation recently hitting the public domain at the moment shares one single factor in common and it is not flawed science, it is flawed probity.

If you really wish to understand skepticism, just read the post by Dr Merlyn and tell me honestly if you feel such comments increase or decrease skepticism?

Caution! Once you question the probity, you will instantly become a skeptic

Pouring all this vitriol upon each other is just piss-in-the-winds of change. ALL science is speculative and flawed, because it is done by flawed humans, and facts are only that until superseded by new findings. Climate science is very-very new, and particularly complex, and because it draws upon a variety of disciplines is NOT a discrete science. It is very experimental and there will be NO absolute facts for quite some time to come. Few, if any scientists are seriously trying to hoodwink anyone into complying with species death, they just come at it from different angles. But while all you inarguably bright people are spending time and energy arguing whose science is better, the things we could be fixing straight away are going to hell in the proverbial. What a waste of energy all this is.
To be sure, robust debate is important in all discourses, and there are vested interests with huge investments that are trying to screw the last profits out by demanding absolute facts before they call time on some of their outdated enterprises. These are the valid targets of a concerted reasoned debate by all concerned individuals, and NOT each other! Reading all this cranky stuff makes me feel like Mother in a Kindergarten.

dr merlyn, are you a doctor or is that just a web handle?

"the things we could be fixing straight away are going to hell in the proverbial. What a waste of energy all this is."

No one disagrees that we could all pollute less and it's a good thing to do.

I am skeptical of the some of the science and of many of the goals of people on the AGW side of the "debate".

Whether we do or don't agree CO2 is a pollutant or an innocent bystander, does not justify - councils stopping land approvals for building a beach house (Victoria), that we should distribute our wealth to poor nations, that we should be taxed, be vilified for "not believing" (e.g. DENIER!), that the minds of children are polluted with eco rubbish about the world ending, the list is endless.

So I disagree that it is "a waste of energy", and like many others will stand up to bullies and pompous loudmouths who try to intimidate others into their way of thinking.

I'm happy to do some things for the environment, but not everything being demanded is benevolent to my way of life - I'd like nuclear reactors, dams, good roads, safe public transport, but I digress.

I will not though, fall into the stupidity of trying to second guess nature or gamble on our future, the cry we have to do something does not mean we have to do something stupid, just for the sake of action.

It needs to be considered action, not some idiot idea of wanting to stop the climate changing, or setting the world to some particular average temperature, or taxing for the sake of the look of it, or the most stupid Quixotic claim, to control the climate - I mean really!

Amicus, I can only admire and echo your sentiments. Can you or any other OLO’ers explain why we so called “skeptics/deniers” are so willing to open up and articulate our concerns only to be met with the vacuous invectives and abuse from the likes of Dr Merlyn?

They could be suffering the first phase of the trauma cycle, that of “anger and rejection” (I’m loathed to use the official wording, “denial”). When are the AGW supporters going to open their minds to the possibility and debate that they could possibly, or might have been “had”? More importantly, how?

There is no consolation, at the moment, for those who have invested so much in the social phenomena of AGW. Even less consolation for those who feel we might have been distracted from “real” issues related to our treatment of our planet, this really is unforgivable.

Since you mention it, I also have two grandchildren who are obsessed and distressed by the dread of exaggerated conservation claims. They really are quite frightened. If I were to meet someone in the street, who was responsible for that level of juvenile fear, I would, and I’m sorry to say this, wring their miserable $#!*ing necks.

The last time we saw this level of “child indoctrination” was Hitler’s “Brown Shirts” in 1939. The next time WWF asks me to put money into their tin, will see me arrested. NGOs’ have much to answer for.

It is easy to account for some scientists protecting their “recognition in their field”, the intelligentsia protecting their “vanity”, the politicians protecting their “legacy, votes and political reputation”, academics protecting their “funding and institutional Brand Value” however, what does the AGW supporting public have to gain? It Baffles me.

Yet the public has become supporters of the “great lie”. Could this be a consequence of the non-scientific public being involved in a scientific debate, or that we have missed the fact that it has been “converted” into a political debate?

When will the AGW supporters acknowledge that there are “two sides” to every debate?

Amicus, stay with the program!