Post-Normal Science has a number of impacts. God in a white lab coat is dethroned, for sure. We used to believe that whatever Nature, Scientific American, the Lancet published was good to go. We had no idea that self-interest was so much a piece of the action, conscious or not. The WWII generation cursed war protesters in the ’60s, saying that “the government knows more that you do”, dismissing their thoughts as uneducated. The 60′s showed us that, in fact, often the learned public DID know more than the government, or at least was more honest in its assessment. Public agendas driven by science are now in the same position as the war protestors of old.

Learned men and women can, and apparently must, audit high-level science used to direct social programs and the taxpayer-sourced resources. This is what I see as extemely important and revolutionary about Post-Normal Science. Could the Pope nail Galileo to the wall if all Italians could have downloaded his images and calculations and agreed with what he was saying? Rhetoical, of course.

We have heard nothing from recently retired NIWA or BOM scientists. Their position would be of enormous interest. The assumption – hypothesis, really – is that a conspiracy of sorts exists to maintain a pro-CAGW scientific basis within the NIWA and BOM technical analyses. Those now not dependent on the governmental money trough would be in a good position to answer this. It is somewhat of a surprise that these individuals have not been slipped a few Fosters to find out what they really think.

There are good arguements for it – allowing fearless comment – avoiding disputes with
other scientists who may become collegues in another area etc.

BUT it has become a cloak to hide less than gold standard behaviour, so to speak.
It is time it is swept away.

(See my new blog on this – target launch date March 2011).

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/announcing-a-formal-request-for-the-auditor-general-to-audit-the-australian-bom/

Surely NIWA would want to provide the substantive documentary evidence behind what it says the results are, so I would press and if NIWA will not produce or the Ombudsman does not uphold your appeal then I would subpoena that review in the current proceedings and let the Court decide the issue

I think your current proceedings are waiting for a case management conference, is that right

At least NIWA didn’t plead commercial in confidence which our Govt usually does to any inconvenient requests for substantive documentary evidence

Virtually all of the Climategate whitewash enquiries commented unfavourably on the secrecy of all aspects of climate science. The House Of Commons Select Committee made a specific recommendation that the whole field should be much more transparent in future.

Does the Minister agree with the furtive behaviour of his Crown entity?

The OIA act looks next to useless if this is a standard response. “You can have any information you like as long as we let you”.

Good letter to the Ombudsman, btw. Will be waiting to see the response.

So the longer they delay and obstruct, the louder will be their critics when the material is eventually forced out of their hands and the stronger will be the measures taken against them, either corporately or individually. I suspect (sadly) this saga will obtain a messy end because, at some ordinary, practical human level, someone is simply not being reasonable. Among educated, intelligent people, that is never allowed to continue for long—neither by one’s colleagues, one’s supervisors or one’s customers.

It will be stopped. The human being loves reason; our society is founded in reason.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/if-ipcc-meetings-were-televised/

NIWA seem only too happy to have TV cameras recording their research work but not in this instance – curious.

“To disclose such correspondence would stymie the flow of similar information, negatively affect the ability of NIWA and the Bureau of Meteorology to conduct such peer reviews, and negatively affect the ability of NIWA to have draft papers peer reviewed prior to publication.”

Would it really? And why? I would have thought professional operators would have no qualms about the disclosure of that correspondence. On the contrary, disclosure is an excellent opportunity to gain respect from potential customers or partners if it reveals professional and expert conduct..

“NIWA has considered the reasons which would support disclosure of that correspondence, but believes that the balance favours non-disclosure of the information you seek.”

On NIWA’s balance, that is.