I actually don't agree with this statement, Susi. I've seen students (and academic) engage in debates with skeptics in public forums where they haven't been able to respond to arguments e.g. global dimming and the allegation that warming actually causes carbon dioxide levels to rise. If you simply state your position without responding to specific counterarguments, you can look dumb.
I'll give you a perfect example, I watched Representative Jim Moran debate Representative Duncan Hunter (who no one would accuse of being a towering intellectual) on Hardball with Chris Matthews a few weeks ago on climate change. Moran stubbornly kept saying "this is what the IPCC is telling us." Hunter hit him with a fusillade of contrarian arguments, including the alleged impact of solar intensity variability and cooling in portions of the Antarctic, and when Moran didn't address those specific issues, Hunter argued, "you guys accuse of ignoring science, but these are scientific facts." I think Hunter ended up drubbing him as a result. We need to train our students to address the specific arguments that they guys are making or we risk being accused of turning tail and running from "the truth." wil Dr. Wil Burns Class of 1946 Visiting Professor Center for Environmental Studies Williams College 11 Harper House, Room 12 54 Stetson Ct. Williamstown, MA 01267 william.c.bu...@williams.edu Williams Purple Cow From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Susanne Moser Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 10:35 AM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Re: FW: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Valuable new references - thanks, all. My 2 cents on this is: instead of punch-by-punch countering of phony arguments, it's far more advisable to actually frame the debate how you want to frame it instead. Make them be on the defensive rather than you dance to their tune.... Aaron McCright has also written a "communication strategy" chapter in our edited volume that some of you may find helpful. (Moser, and Dilling 2007, Creating a Climate for Change, Cambridge UP). Best, Susi Dunlap, Riley wrote: >From the flyer I've seen on Hulme's book, I agree with Simon that it should be a valuable read. And since my post yesterday regarding Morano & Inhofe's "650 list" may have seemed too dismissive to some, I've decided to share a few references that may help put their list into a broader context by documenting the ideological basis of the bulk (not all) of climate-change skepticism--and in the process hopefully indicate that there was a lot of "research and scholarship" behind my comments. Also, as I told Steve Hoffman in a personal message, Morano has quite a background for leading the fight against climate-change policy. Before joining Inhofe's staff he worked for Rush Limbaugh and then played a key role in the 2004 "Swift-Boat Veterans for Truth" campaign against Kerry. He recently left Inhofe and is now running "Climate Depot," the latest of the multitude of climate skeptic websites which can be found here: http://www.climatedepot.com/ The two articles with McCright are based on work that is getting a bit dated, but I think are still highly relevant--especially the second piece. The article with Jacques is more current, and while it focuses on "environmental skepticism" more generally I think you'll find the evidence that links over 90% of the books espousing it with one or more conservative think tanks of interest--as well as the overall argument. Jacques and I are in the process of doing an update that focuses specifically on books espousing climate-change skepticism (of which there are now nearly 80), and hope to have a paper ready in the next few months. McCright, Aaron M. and Riley E. Dunlap. 2000. "Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement's Counter-Claims." Social Problems 47:499-522. McCright, Aaron M. and Riley E. Dunlap. 2003. "Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy." Social Problems 50:348-373. Jacques, Peter, Riley E. Dunlap and Mark Freeman. 2008. "The Organization of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism." Environmental Politics 17:349-385. _____ From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Simon Dalby [sda...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 9:57 AM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Fwd: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Folks: I don't think anyone on the GEPED list has yet mentioned Mike Hulme's new 2009 Cambridge University book Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. The book presents climate change as both a physical phenomenon and also, given the attention it gets, as a social one too. Its not an immediate 'response to skeptics' piece, but if teaching these things is on your mind, Hulme's book may be an interesting way into teaching all this come the Fall semester, and given that its immediately available in paperback and clearly written with students and a general audience in mind it has classroom potential. Simon -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Director, Principal Scientist Research Associate Susanne Moser Research & Consulting Institute of Marine Sciences 134 Shelter Lagoon Dr. University of California-Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 email: promu...@susannemoser.com
<<image001.gif>>
