When I read his description of PNS, it felt to me a fancy way of describing what most of us would describe as “winging it”. i.e there is an emergency, we need to cut corners and get the job done.

I am completely against this. A framework needs to be built, in science and engineering, that can cope with crises, bottlenecks in timeframes etc, without compromising quality, safety or integrity.

However, having said that, I have a lot of respect for Ravetz. He acknowledged a lot of the flaws in PNS and climate science, and he also organised the Lisbon workshop on reconciliation in climate science, which Judith Curry and others were involved in.

Turbo post normal science by press – peer review optional

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/15/turbo-post-normal-science-by-press-peer-review-optional/

The Post-Normal Seduction of Climate Science

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/10/14/the-post-normal-seduction-of-climate-science/

“PNS is a model of the scientific process pioneered by Jerome Ravetz and Silvio Funtowicz, which describes the peculiar challenges science encounters where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent.” Unlike “normal” science in the sense described by the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, post-normal science commonly crosses disciplinary lines and involves new methods, instruments and experimental systems.”

How can decisions be urgent when facts are uncertain and values in dispute in respect to imposing punitive taxes globally on the object of the uncertainty?

As in Saddam’s WMD, CO2 is merely a vehicle for a different agenda entirely – but Gluckman’s oblivious to that obviously.

“They have seen the importance of science in [...] the shifting understanding of climate change“

Yes I’ve seen the importance.

Doing my level best to aid the “shifting” with it too.

“I have seen a major role of my office as being to communicate to the public on matters of complex post-normal science and on the limits and potential of science. I have tried to explain what science and innovation can do to enhance New Zealand’s economic and social development. I took a significant role in explaining how the scientific position on anthropogenic climate change was reached. More recently I have addressed issue of public concern over earthquake predictions and psychosocial responses to earthquakes.”

http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CSA-report-2009-2011.pdf

Sorry? I missed these “significant roles”. Or is he just beefing up his CV?

If he doesn’t understand climate change issues then he must delegate statements about climate to those who do – and not falsely add his authority to such statements.

Eloise diligently reported the machinations of the conference steadfastly adhering to the consensus that catastrophic climate change was fait accompli unless lots of money changed hands.

To give the Herald credit, the source of influence was revealed at the bottom of her reports:-

“* Eloise Gibson travelled to Copenhagen with the assistance of the Science Media Centre and Science New Zealand.”

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10615354

So no conflict of interest and we all know that “ghost ” writers don’t travel.

I’ll be interested to see if her efforts at COP 15 will be rewarded with a holiday in Cancun – “with the assistance” of her handlers (there’s a poodle analogy there somewhere but I’m not suggesting….).