Over at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. blog, there’s a great post up today by Steven Mosher comparing normal science (the hunt for the Higgs Boson) with post-normal climate science.
Mosher points out that in normal science, scientists can acknowledge uncertainty, they’re not under any particular deadline, values aren’t a factor, and other than the usual need to get published and funded, there’s not a lot at stake in any given experiment or research paper. Mosher offers up the recent Higgs Boson findings as an example of normal science.
The difference between Kuhnian normal science, or the behavior of those doing science under normal conditions, and post normal science is best illustrated by example. We can use the recent discovery of the Higgs Boson as an example. Facts were uncertain–they always are to a degree; no values were in conflict; the stakes were not high; and, immediate action was not required. What we see in that situation is those doing science acting as we expect them to, according to our vague ideal of science. Because facts are uncertain, they listen to various conflicting theories. They try to put those theories to a test. They face a shared uncertainty and in good faith accept the questions and doubts of others interested in the same field. Their participation in politics is limited to asking for money. Because values are not in conflict no theorist takes the time to investigate his opponent’s views on evolution or smoking or taxation. Because the field of personal values is never in play, personal attacks are minimized. Personal pride may be at stake, but values rarely are. The stakes for humanity in the discovery of the Higgs are low: at least no one argues that our future depends upon the outcome. No scientist straps himself to the collider and demands that it be shut down. And finally, immediate action is not required; under no theory is the settling of the uncertainty so important as to rush the result.
I think he could have equally used the “faster than light neutrino” thing from last year as well. In both situations, you had scientists behaving in a wonderfully open, honest, humble way, inviting others to please, please, test their findings. Heck, in the case of the CERN situation, as I recall, the scientists who released the findings were in doubt about them, and were practically apologizing for asking the rest of the world to figure out what was wrong with their research protocols. When the faster-than-light neutrinos were found not to move faster-than-light, the scientists who first proposed the idea didn’t call the ones who disproved it “fast-neutrino-deniers.”
This is not the case in climate science, Mosher observes:
Because values are in conflict the behavior of those doing science changes. In normal science no one would care if Higgs was a Christian or an atheist. No one would care if he voted liberal or conservative; but because two different value systems are in conflict in climate science, the behavior of those doing science changes. They investigate each other. They question motives. They form tribes. And because the stakes are high the behavior of those doing science changes as well. They protest; they take money from lobby groups on both sides and worst of all they perform horrendous raps on YouTube. In short, they become human; while those around them canonize them or demonize them and their findings become iconized or branded as hoaxes.
This brings us to the last aspect of a PNS [Post-Normal Science] situation: immediate action is required. This perhaps is the most contentious aspect of PNS, in fact I would argue it is the defining characteristic. In all PNS situations it is almost always the case the one side sees the need for action, given the truth of their theory, while the doubters must of necessity see no need for immediate action. They must see no need for immediate action because their values are at risk and because the stakes are high.
I think Mosher hits this one on the head:
One of the clearest signs that you are in PNS is the change in behavior around deadlines. Normal science has no deadline. In normal science, the puzzle is solved when it is solved. In normal science there may be a deadline to shut down the collider for maintenance. Nobody rushes the report to keep the collider running longer than it should. And if a good result is found, the schedules can be changed to accommodate the science. Broadly speaking, science drives the schedule; the schedule doesn’t drive the science.
Mosher illustrates the differences between normal science and post-normal science with reference to things like the climategate emails, which show considerable emphasis on a shared belief that the stakes are high, action needs to be taken immediately, and science must follow the political time-table of climate negotiations and United Nations publications, rather than following its own schedule. Well worth reading the whole thing.
Tonight, a really expensive robot lands on Mars, having traveled there at enormous taxpayer expense. Why?
Why do we have a space station orbiting our planet? I don’t ask as some sort of tin-foil wearing paranoia sufferer concerned about some nefarious purpose – I ask as someone who sees the entire ISS project as a waste of tax money for the benefit of a community of businesses, government agencies, and lots of technicians employed in high paying jobs. I see it as pork for a community that exists simply to live off the gravy train of taxpayer funding. Same thing with the never-ending chain of Mars missions – it is an ongoing concern that simply transfers wealth to narrow interests. All of the non-defense, government-funded space program work is essentially an FDR-esque make-work program shot into space.
Similarly, there is a community, (a much, much larger and entrenched community), of academics, lawyers, consultants, and “green” industry businesses that have a very non-scientific, utterly material interest in advancing, amplifying, and rendering as state religion the notion of anthropogenic climate change. The conflict of interest that exists with climate change alarmists is very relevant and cannot be ignored. For the alarmists to claim some status of objectivity is ludicrous. It is as ludicrous as such a claim from people or businesses who made money in the space program.
There is no scientific endeavor that is untouched by the human characteristics of the people engaged in it. Scientists are not some separate species or collection of higher beings so pure, clean, and unblemished they no need for lavatories in their laboratories. This “normal science” that Mosher refers to is not as normal as he thinks of it.
On anthropogenic climate science:
1. Most people are not climate scientists. Climate science appears to be very complex. It appears to be a subject that even experienced people who ARE climate scientists do not fully understand. Therefore, it is a subject that is difficult to discuss to any certain conclusions, even for well-educated, scientifically literate persons who are not climate scientists.
2. Climate change has obviously gone on in history. For one example, researchers studying the history of the Vikings in Greenland dug through layers of frozen ground to expose Viking farms from roughly a thousand years ago. Certainly, the Vikings didn’t farm permafrost. Obviously there was a time that Greenland was warmer and relatively ice-free. This is just one example. I have not heard a serious argument against the existence of natural climate change. The alarmists use natural climate change – which is not controversial – as a major component of their straw man argument, in which they present things that their critics are not even concerned with as if they were the actual arguments of the critics.
3. Anthropogenic climate change is conceivable. Some notable skeptics even say it exists (J. Patrick Michaels, instance). However, it is NOT proven and even if it exists, its effects are not known to be either significant nor harmful on the balance.
4. The burden of proof is not assignable to the skeptics. The alarmists are responsible for certain proof. They have not provided it. I don’t think they ever will. Where Mosher is correct is with regard to the high pressure sales tactics being used by alarmists. The antics of the alarmists are no different than those of used car salesmen and telemarketers.
5. Many smart, well-educated people – especially academics – have bought into the anthropogenic climate change brouhaha. I suspect that many of them are concerned about acknowledging or even considering any seed of doubt, because they perceive that their own reputations will be harmed by their public association with such a notion if that notion is shown to have been a hoax. Nobody wants to look like a fool. The followers of the climate alarmists have probably been snookered, and they will fight that realization to the end.