Following a long period of reflection, or brooding, or something, Post-Normal-Times blogger and environment consultant Sylvia Tognetti has a new year’s resolution to go on the offensive against Post-Normal-Science originator and veteran philosopher of science Jerry Ravetz. Sylvia seems to have come to a judgement that Jerry has abandoned the principles of PNS and ‘gone over to the wrong side’ as a result of being ‘turned’ by the arguments of ‘cranks’, including Judy Curry, and me. :)
Jerry wrote a letter to Sylvia attempting to mark out his position, but this seems not to have gone down too well. At least she’s stopped calling us ‘deniers’ after the quiet word I had on her site two years ago this coming week. But she obviously feels that the right way to balance her ‘concession’ on the ‘denier’ labelling issue is by using the ‘crank’ label 10 times in a few paragraphs, while berating Jerry for pointing out the negative consequences of alarmist claims made 12 years ago. It’s a bit of a rant, but not bad as spectator sport. The assembled warmista are trying to damn Ravetz by linking to one of his WUWT articles. For the wider world, the article he co-wrote with Mike Hulme post-climategate is far more important:
‘Show Your Working': What ‘ClimateGate’ means
Now in comments on this latest thread, I’ve caused more upset by pointing out that Dr David Viner of the CRU/UEA should have known better than to mislead the public and Govt over the likely disappearance of snow from our lives here in the UK. Sylvia said I couldn’t blame Viner for failing to be aware of unknown-unknowns which have given us three hard freezing winters and 50,000 prematurely dead pensioners in the last four years. I pointed out that Viner was at a workshop at AGW central (Potsdam) shortly before his infamous ‘no more snow’ gaffe along with UEA colleague Mike Hulme, who had this to say about uncertainty in climate change impact projections in a paper he presented there:
Numerous examples were presented throughout the first Workshop to illustrate important uncertainties needing to be accounted for at different stages of an impacts assessment. A number of standard techniques were also described for addressing these uncertainties. The fact that climate change impact studies seldom apply such procedures suggests that proper guidelines are urgently required by the research community. It also draws a shroud over much of the published research on climate change impacts which may, at best, be understating the uncertainties, and at worst, providing blatantly misleading information. This is an uncomfortable situation for informing the decision process.
Viner even co-edited the workshop proceedings with Hulme after the event. Do have a read, it’s like a trip back to the future.
Going back to the Ravetz-Hulme piece published by the BBC, we find the real reason Sylvia and her sycophants have turned against Ravetz:
It is possible that some areas of climate science have become sclerotic, that its scientific practices have become too partisan, that its funding – whether from private or public sectors – has compromised scientists.
The tribalism that some of the e-mails reveal suggests a form of social organisation that is now all too familiar in some sections of business and government.
It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the IPCC has now largely run its course.
Perhaps, through its structural tendency to politicise climate change science, it has helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalising and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.
Of course, Tognetti was all fo Ravetz’ calls for inclusivity while they were limited to including her and the activist NGO’s. Now that Jerry has recognized the need to include the views of those critical of the IPCC it has become ‘a bad thing’.