Impulse statement/discussion: Climate science: still post-normal? Hans von Storch Geesthacht, Hamburg, and 青岛 Impulse statement/discussion: Climate science: still post-normal? 21 June 2017 – Hamburg Workshop „Re–defining the Boundaries of Science and Journalism in the Debate on Climate Change“

The work and discussions, which I am reporting at his occasion results from more thane two decades of work with Dr. Dennis Bray, a sociologist by training, who bravely survived 20 years of a professional live among natural scientists. He is now retired and has withdrawn to the forests of British Columbia. In the course of time, we conducted five „Bray and von Storch“-surveys among international samples of climate scientists – in 1996, 2001, 2007, 2013 and 2015. The data of all, but the last, are freely accessible through “academia.edu”. Also the results in terms of response frequencies for all questions have been published as HZG-reports, archived at academia.edu. The analysis of the data of the first survey, from 1996, lead us to our suggestion that climate science would be “post-normal”, or as I prefer to say: “in post-normal conditions”: Bray, D. and H. von Storch, 1999: Climate Science. An empirical example of postnormal science. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 80: 439-456. The following is an attempt for summarizing the various ideas on the significance of the postnormal conditions, which climate science finds itself in.

Societal expectations When scientists speak to the public, then scientific statements are expected, which are associated with an authority based on “objectivity”. Society presumes that something like Merton‘s norms (CUDOS) are employed. This is so only to a limited extent (Bray-surveys) Climate Science is in a post-normal phase (following the concept of Funtovicz and Ravetz) Which role do climate scientists see themselves in?

Natural scientists consider statements as scientific … when they have been derived by employing a scientific method - have „survived“ falsification, - have out-competed alternative explanations - can be reproduced by independent researchers when it is made clear that the statements do not represent “truth” but explanations, which for the time being are consistent with observations and theories considered valid, and better than other alternative explanations. At a later time, a re-consideration may be needed if new data and theories lead to contradictions or make better fitting explanations possible. But not when formulated by scientifically educated people, who do not employ the scientific method (for instance, do no consider alternative explanations, or opt for an explanation because of consistency with a specific school of research).

Robert K. Merton‘s CUDOS (1942) Communalism: the common ownership of scientific discoveries, according to which scientists give up intellectual property rights in exchange for recognition and esteem. Universalism: according to which claims to truth are evaluated in terms of universal or impersonal criteria, and not on the basis of race, class, gender, religion, or nationality. Disinterestedness: scientists, when presenting their work publicly, should do so without any prejudice or personal values and do so in an impersonal manner. Organized skepticism: all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community (peer review) scrutiny. Using the results of an the 2013 on-line survey of climate scientists concerning the norms of science, the climate scientists’ subscription to these norms are explored in this paper: Bray, D., and H. von Storch, 2015: The Normative Orientations of Climate Scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics, DOI 10.1007/s11948-014-9605-1

Communality Versus Solitariness Communality implies that research results should be the property of the entire scientific community. Scientific findings constitute a common heritage in which the equity of the individual producer is severely limited.’ Solitariness, the counter-norm of communality, implies that findings should be kept secret at least until publication.

Disinterestedness Versus Interestedness Disinterestedness implies that scientists should have no emotional or financial attachment to their work, be personally detached from truth claims, accept conclusions shaped only by evidence, and scientists should not campaign for a particular point of view or outcome. Disinterestedness also reflects the quality of perusing personal academic interests rather than the interests of funding agencies, policy priorities or institutional strategies. Interestedness means that the scientist has personal interests at stake in the reception of his or her results and work.

The data suggests that while Merton’s CUDOs remain the overall guiding moral principles, they are not fully endorsed or present in the conduct of climate scientists: there is a tendency to withhold results until publication, there is the intention of maintaining property rights, and the tendency to assign the significance of authored work according to the status of the author rather than content of the paper. Additionally, there is external influence defining research.

Postnormal science Jerry Ravetz, Silvio Funtovicz, 1986 and earlier facts uncertain: e.g. sensitivity of global mean temperature to doubling of CO2 concentration values in dispute, e.g., do we cement the world according to our present preferences or do we accept a generationally dynamical development? stakes high, e.g., costs for re-organizing global energy market and future damages decisions urgent, e.g., to be efficient, re-organization of e.g., traffic must be begun now. Jerry Ravetz, Silvio Funtovicz, 1986 and earlier State of science, when facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent. In this state, science is not only done for reasons for curiosity but is asked for as support for preconceived value-based agendas. Climate Science is in a post-normal phase (Bray and von Storch, 1999)

Characteristic for postnormal conditions is Science is „de-scientized“, and „politicized“. Policy is „de-politicized“, and „scientized“. Policy decisions are framed as being “without alternative” – scientific knowledge leads to unique „solutions“ which need to be implemented without further democratic influence on the substance. Some scientists act as policy activists, while exploiting their public authority as scientists. Emergence of different knowledge claims, among them “alternative facts”. A post-normal situation is not “bad”, but needs recognition as such: - limitation of scientific expertise to the methodically sound core (re-scientizing), and - re-establishment of openly value-based democratic decision process (re-politicizing).

Two different construction of „climate change“ – scientific and cultural – which is more powerful? Cultural: „Klimakatastrophe“ Scientific: man-made change is real, can be mitigated to some extent but not completely avoided Lund and Stockholm Storms 11

Knowledge market The science-policy/public interaction is not an issue of „knowledge speaks to power“. The problem is not that the public is stupid or uneducated. The problem is that the scientific knowledge is confronted on the „explanation marked“ with other forms of knowledge (pre-scientific, outdated; traditional, morphed by different interests). Scientific knowledge does not necessarily “win” this competition. The social process „science“ is influenced by these other knowledge forms. Science can not be objective but should nevertheless strive to be so. 12

Climate scientists … transgress into policy-prescribing regularly so, uniformly (same direction) so. Trivialize social dynamics, and try to model the world, including the social sphere, as if its dynamics would be governed by a set of deterministic (or stochastic) equations. Typical pattern of a science in postnormal conditions (high inherent uncertainty; high stake, urgent decisions, values in dispute).

Natural scientists transgress …