Klimatologie: een postnormale wetenschap

Is er nog hoop op normalisering? Of blijft het doormodderen?

Degenen die zich nietsvermoedend in de klimaatdiscussie mengen, merken alras tot hun schrik dat het hier niet om een gewone wetenschappelijke discussie gaat. Ad hominems, wederzijdse verkettering, karaktermoorden, beschuldigingen, insinuaties, stigmatisering, scheldpartijen, excommunicatie, diepgeworteld wantrouwen in de motieven van de opponenten, onderzoek naar financiële bronnen van de discussianten, weigering om wetenschappelijke gegevens openbaar te maken, sabotering van publicatiemogelijkheden van collega's met alternatieve opvattingen door druk op redacties van wetenschappelijke tijdschriften om publicatie van afwijkende visies te weigeren enz. enz. komen veelvuldig voor (alhoewel ik de indruk heb dat het de laatste tijd wat is afgenomen). In een recente bijdrage aan het blog van Judith Curry schrijft Steven Mosher dit toe aan het feit dat de klimatologie een postnormale wetenschap is.

Science has changed. More precisely, in post normal conditions the behavior of people doing science has changed.
 
Ravetz describes a post normal situation by the following criteria:
 1. Facts are uncertain
 2. Values are in conflict
 3. Stakes are high
 4. Immediate action is required
 
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 uncertainity 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. In normal science, according to Kuhn, we can view the behavior of those doing science as puzzle solving. The details of a paradigm are filled out slowly and deliberately.
 
The situation in climate science are close to the polar opposite of this. That does not mean and should not be construed as a criticism of climate science or its claims. The simple point is this: in a PNS situation [PNS = Post Normal Science], the behavior of those doing science changes. To be sure much of their behavior remains the same. They formulate theories; they collect data, and they test their theories against the data. They don’t stop doing what we notional  describe as science. But, as foreshadowed above in the description of how high energy particle physicists behave, one can see how that behavior changes in a PNS situation. There is uncertainty, but the good faith that exists in normal science, the faith that other people are asking questions because they actually want the answer is gone. Asking questions, raising doubts, asking to see proof becomes suspect in and of itself. And those doing science are faced with a question that science cannot answer: Does this person really want the answer or are they a merchant of doubt? Such a question never gets asked in normal science. Normal science doesn’t ask this question because science cannot answer it.
 
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 worse 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.

Mosher behandelt voorts nog een paar andere elementen die kenmerkend zijn voor PNS, zoals de vermeende noodzaak om onmiddellijk in actie te komen om ingrijpende maatschappijveranderingen door te voeren. Dit gaat gepaard met de introductie van deadlines voor de voortgang van het wetenschappelijke werk, die in de normale wetenschap niet worden gehanteerd. Destijds was er veel gedoe ten aanzien van de vraag of de kritiek van McIntyre en McKitrick op de temperatuurreconstructie van Michael Mann et al (de hockeystick) al dan niet door het VN-klimaatpanel (IPCC) voor zijn toenmalige rapport in beschouwing diende te worden genomen. Thans speelt de deadline weer een belangrijke rol in de haast die de BEST-onderzoekers o.l.v. Richard Muller enerzijds en en Anthony Watts et al. anderzijds hebben betracht om de resultaten van hun onderzoek vroegtijdig op internet bekend te maken, nog voordat het peer review-proces was afgerond. Inmiddels weten we dat er bezwaren tegen beide onderzoeken zijn gerezen en zij dus vooralsnog niet voor publicatie zijn geaccepteerd. 

Mosher acht het moeilijk om uit zo'n PNS-situatie te ontsnappen. Immers beide kampen zullen hardnekkig ontkennen dat daarvan sprake is.   

Conclusie:

Today, few people embroiled in this debate would admit that the situation has changed how they would normally behave. An admission that this isn’t working is a cultural crisis for science. No one has the standing to describe how one should conduct science in a PNS situation. No one has the standing to chart the path out of a PNS situation. The best we can do is describe what we see.

Today, I observe that deadlines change the behavior of those doing science. We see that in climategate; we see that in the events of the past week. That’s doesn’t entail anything about the truth of science performed under pressure. But it should make us pause and consider if truth will be found any faster by rushing the results and hiding the data.

Lees verder hier.

Al met al een hoogst interessante beschouwing. Maar het ziet er niet naar uit dat de klimatologie zich spoedig zal kunnen ontworstelen aan haar postnormaliteit. Het kwaad is te diep geworteld. Het blijft voorlopig dus doormodderen.