Folks,
I posted my inquiry of earlier today about The Great Global Warming
Swindle to the "NEES" list (a collection of EScience types,
principally in the northeast) as well. This reply just came back,
which I thought would be of interest to some looking for teaching materials.
Best wishes,
Mike Maniates
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:19:34 -0400
Reply-To: "Greg Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: "North East Environmental Studies Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Greg Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [NEES] The Great Global Warming Swindle
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
hi all,
I've responsed to Mike off-list, but I wanted to share one somewhat
relevant reference I've really enjoyed, and which has broadly
applicable educational value.
Naomi Oreskes, a philosopher of science at UCSD, has written a nice
book chapter called "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How
Do We Know We're Not Wrong?" She does a good job of summing up the
data on the "controversy" over climate change. More broadly, though,
she speaks to the scientific method, what we mean by "theory", and the
nature of evidence and proof. It's a great overview of scientific
understanding in general.
The question of how certain we are of our scientific conclusions, and
particularly how certain we need to be before we make change, is
extremely relevant to those of us in public health (I recognize that I
might be the only one on this list!). Obvious examples include
tobacco, PCBs, and lead. But similar questions come up all the time
in any policy discussion, including environmental protection and
sustainability.
At least for the moment, the whole chapter is available online at
https://ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/Chapter4.pdf
It's part of Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and
Our Grandchildren, edited by Joseph F. C. DiMento and Pamela M.
Doughman, MIT Press, 2007.
best,
greg
--
Gregory Howard, MPH / <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Department of Environmental Health
Boston University School of Public Health
On 10/24/07, Michael Maniates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Does anyone have the back story on The Great Global Warming Swindle, a
> "contrarian" climate change video aired in the UK recently and
now available
> on DVD? My understanding is that many of the scientists in the video
> objected to how their on-camera comments were manipulated in the editing
> process. I've also gleaned from the web -- from totally unreliable sources
> I might add -- that both Channel 4, which aired the movie, and
the producers
> distanced themselves from the production because of data falsification, and
> that the show has not been run in the U.S. (even by Fox News) because of
> this.
>
> But most of this comes to me through third-person contacts or random web
> sites. Do any of you have the larger story, or can you point me in the
> right directions?
>
> I ask because a colleague of mine at Allegheny, in response to a request
> from students who feel silenced by the energy Al Gore has generated, is
> thinking of screening this video as a formal, College-sanctioned event to
> "bring balance to the debate on campus."
>
> As an aside, I think The Great Global Warming Swindle can be a useful
> addition to teaching tool-box of those of us who teach the climate-change
> controversy. And I myself wouldn't object to the video if it's used to
> teach the debate. I'm more wary of Swindle as a definitive, credible
> "counter-balance" to Inconvenient Truth or the material that my colleagues
> and I present in the classroom, in large part because of its accusations of
> conspiracy and intentional distortion of data.
>
> Feel free to reply to me off-list. I'll summarize the helpful replies and
> share them here.
>
> Yours,
> Mike Maniates
> Allegheny College
>
>
