I'm not up in arms over this particular conference either--there will always be skeptics--but it will be an opportunity to obfuscate the policy options associated with climate change as much as the science itself. As someone else noted earlier, conflating the science and policy aspects of the debate can be a pretty powerful tool, one that most of these "anti-alarmist" organizations use to keep the public quiescent in spite of the general acceptance of climate science noted by Will.
For anyone who's interested, here's a good recent article on this issue in media representation of climate science: http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0803/full/climate.2008.14.html It's pretty accessible & could be a good class reading assignment as well. dgwebster On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Wil Burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Re: upcoming Heartland conference (and why the heck is CORE one of the > co-sponsors?) > > > > > > Perhaps I'm too sanguine about this (though that doesn't tend to be my > manner), but I wouldn't sweat a conference like this because I seriously > doubt it will have much impact. I've recently been interviewed on radio > call-in shows in very conservative places, e.g. Jackson, Tennessee and > Mobile, Alabama, and save the random Rush ditto-head caller, the vast > majority of folks subscribe to the theory that we're changing the climate, > so I don't see a conference of this nature radically transforming public > opinion. > > > > What is more lamentable is that while a very large majority of Americans > believe that climate change is occurring, and is primarily linked to > anthropogenic activities, its issue saliency is very low, anywhere from > about 16th on the list of most important issues for Democrats to about 25th > for Republicans (recent Pew surveys even after much of the recent focus on > the issue). Most Americans believe that the U.S. can easily adapt to > climate change, and as for the rest of the world, well, as Ari Fleischer > once said, we're not going to do anything that interferes with our blessed > lifestyle. Tackling both the false (in the mid-term and long-term scenarios > at least) perception that we can readily adapt to climate change in the > U.S., and finding a way to tweak our collective conscience about the > inequities of gaily driving our Hummers to the corner grocery store while > Tuvalu disappears under water is the real issue from my perspective. wil > > > > Dr. Wil Burns > > Senior Fellow, International Environmental Law Santa Clara University > School of Law 500 El Camino Real, Loyola 101 Santa Clara, CA 95053 USA > > Phone: 408.551.3000 x6139 > > Mobile: 650.281.9126 > > Fax: 408.554.2745 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > SSRN Author Page: > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=240348 > > International Environmental Law Blog: > http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/intlenvironment/ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ronnie Lipschutz > > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 11:42 AM > > To: Beth DeSombre; GEP-Ed > > Subject: Re: advertisement on Washington Post online > > > > No doubt Seitz also asked for a donation to pay for the continuing > battle... > > > > Ronnie > > > -- D.G. Webster, PhD Postdoctoral Researcher Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-0371 http://wrigley.usc.edu/research/webster.html
