This position was put clearly by Peter Mandelson before becoming a European Commissioner whe he is reported as to have said
"The age of democracy is over. We are now in the post-democratic age"during a speech in Poland.
Now it seems we have the scientific equivalent, Post-Normal Science. What do you do when the science doesn't add up, and the scientific method fails to arrive at your pre decided conclusions? Well you denounce science as out of date and invent a new concept.
"Post-Normal Science (PNS) is a new conception of the management of complex science-related issues. It focuses on aspects of problem-solving that tend to be neglected in traditional accounts of scientific practice: uncertainty, value loading, and a plurality of legitimate perspectives. PNS considers these elements as integral to science. By their inclusion in the framing of complex issues, PNS is able to provide a coherent framework for an extended participation in decision-making, based on the new tasks of quality assurance. "
You see the problem with climate alarmism is that it claims to be based on science, but when held to account under the traditional concept of the scientific method,
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent
experimenters and properly performed experiments.
It fails. So instead a new theory is required that allows for the problem of skewing evidence (qv The CRU emails).
The approach used by normal science to manage complex social and biophysical systems as if they were simple scientific exercises has brought us to our present mixture of intellectual triumph and socio-ecological peril.
So we need to change our comprehension of what distinguishes scientific truth. Got that?
"Under these new conditions, the appropriate style will no longer be rigid demonstration, but inclusive dialogue."
Yes, yes. Of course it will come as no surprise to discover that this paper in The Encyclopedia of Earth only refers to climate science,
"With PNS we are characterising the changes in science which will be necessary in this new century for our civilisation to become sustainable, and whereby worthy of survival".
So are the authors suggesting that anybody that fails to go along with their bowdlerisation of science as "worthy of survival"? Charming. And how do they propose my unworthiness should fail to survive? No doubt through drowning due to man induced sea level changes.
Methinks our civilisation doesn't need their approval, all it needs is the enlightenment method that has improved the lives of countless billons over the past few hundred years and will continue to do so.
Anyhow, who are these charlatans, these quack scientists?
Silvio Funtowicz is the lead author, and bugger me, what a surprise, when I google his name what do I find?
Silvio Funtowicz is a scientific officer at the Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen (IPSC), European Commission Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC)..
His colleague is one Jerry Ravetz
Associate Fellow at the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization at the University of Oxford. An organisation with Sir Crispin Tickell running its policy foresight program.
Better still its Director is
The Director is a lead author on Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
It hosts the Environmental Change Institute which is Funded through the EU'S Framework Program.
You get the picture.