Wil -
It's the history of the climate change discourse that we think this will
get decided on the science. I am not convinced that this is where we
will "win" the engagement of the public. Sorry - too skeptical. Of
course, you're right that politics gets decided on values.
My point before is precisely that this is where most of the "winning and
losing" will happen - on our values, in our guts. The shouting match
over scientific factoids simply allows people to postpone some really
tough choices that they will need to make on the basis of heuristics (do
I trust this contrarian guy better or this liberal greeny, for example).
Very few people will process this stuff deeply, systematically, and
carefully informed by science. Thus I agree with you that a
"no-response" to contrarians will look like you're avoiding something
and THAT will influence people's judgment over what's "true" about the
science, more so than their understanding of the science.
So, by all means, keep explaining what's phony science and cherry-picked
arguments to your students. Help them respond in a way that make them
the more trustworthy debater in the match. But maybe also explain what
tough things may be coming down the pike (for them and the vast majority
of humankind) if we don't learn to make choices in the face of moral and
factual uncertainty.... and help them help the audience see that
necessity (and if you feel so inclined, how to make that choice).
Clearly, if this topic had an easy answer.... I don't think we'd still
had these discussions.
Susi
Dr. Wil Burns wrote:
I'm a bit skeptical that a values-based framing is any easier when engaging
the general public, Susi, but you've done far more work in this context than
I have! I do think that some of these canards (e.g. no warming since 1998)
have really helped shift the public's attitudes and need to be confronted
directly, because otherwise it's really hard to re-frame the issues. Whether
we like it or not, climate policy is decided in democratic forums, and if we
lose the debates on science, we lose the critical public support that moves
us forward. 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
-----Original Message-----
From: Susanne Moser [mailto:promu...@susannemoser.com]
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 11:55 AM
To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Subject: Re: FW: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Wil -
I agree to some extent, but look at it from a slightly different
perspective.
Don't think for a minute that it isn't PRECISELY one of their tactics to
engage scientists or pro-environmental folks in defensive conversation
so that that side doesn't get to make its arguments. I guess, I come
down on "ATM" - answer-transition-message. In other words, don't end
with the "A" to them, help the audience reframe the issue.
The problem with an extended debate over factoids is that it hides a
values-based discussion behind a factual discussion, and you do it with
a public that is unlikely to have the scientific training to really
judge the "truth." They will go with a gut feeling because that's where
a judgment comes from when you don't know the facts. The rhetorical
skill of contrarians is typically far better because they know how to
use precisely this fact for their case. So, the response to contrarians
needs to help people see the values choice they have to make, and not
reinforce the erroneous belief that climate science is something that is
decided in a democratic forum (see Ron's message, or any of Steve
Schneider's statements to the same effect) or in a shouting match.
That said, I don't believe plain stupid, cherry-picked, or blatantly
wrong stuff should EVER stand.
And I agree with you on the valuable teaching involved in parsing apart
the contrarian arguments. Just don't forget to also take apart the
rhetorical aspects of their approach. If we taught our students not just
how to counter false scientific arguments but also how to recognize the
elements of "rhetoric" - I think they would be able to help the audience
see the bigger picture of what's going on in one of these debates, and
audiences (and the facts about climate change) would be better served.
Maybe we don't differ all that much,
Susi
Dr. Wil Burns wrote:
*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
<mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu>
[owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu
<mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu>] On Behalf Of Simon
Dalby [sda...@gmail.com <mailto:sda...@gmail.com>]
*Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2009 9:57 AM
*To:* gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
<mailto: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 <mailto:promu...@susannemoser.com>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
