Hi Peter (and everyone, thanks for the discussion),
One thing you say below caught me by surprise: that skepticism is
"almost exclusively a global North position". Is this true? Can you
elucidate? It's certainly not intuitively obvious, although I would
guess that our boys are the loudest skeptics using this particular
framing.
Kate
On Jul 5, 2009, at 8:51 AM, Peter Jacques wrote:
Our discussions on skepticism have always been really interesting
on this list, and they have helped me evolve my own thoughts on the
matter, so thank you to all posting.
The issue of political economic and energy structure raised by
Olivia, as well as some of the issues raised by DG on psych frames
are interesting. It appears to me that as social scientists, one of
the more powerful things we can do is provide insight into the
<social> structure and patterns in skepticism. For example, we
have briefly discussed and implied the fact, but isn't it peculiar
that such strong demands on knowledge claims (and impeding action)
can be asserted from a singular ideology (contemporary
conservatism, with only minor exceptions), whereas we have a
multitude of ideological voices (not just contemporary liberal)
that assert a number of different lines of argument but which are
in stark contrast to skepticism? Doesn't the fact that such
perspectives are held by so narrow a position, in fact, call into
question the legitimacy (let's leave truth aside for the moment) of
the claim? I think this might be the Achilles heel of skepticism
(remember the original post here was about the Inhofe/Morano list
that attempts to refute the imputed illegitimacy of skepticism by
showing there are supposed skeptical experts), because if something
were true, wouldn't we expect a multitude of perspectives to have
some degree concurrence? (this was my ISA paper in Feb, "The
Science Trap"). Beyond ideology, skepticism is almost exclusively
a global North position (and mostly in the US, with some UK and
less Australian counterparts). Accepting that any position can be
wrong to various degrees, over time as different epistemologies
concur, this should provide mounting legitimacy. Assuming that most
groups can not tell the difference between a real and manufactured
controversy in the actual science communities, legitimacy may be
more politically viable for evaluation than truth because it is
clear that many (even elite) communities have been completely
snowed. These are truncated points that Riley Dunlap, Bob Brulle
and myself are trying to hammer out now in a different paper(so any
comments are appreciated on or off list).
Perhaps a synthesis of Wil's concerns and Suzi's comments, it is my
own position that we <should> use the skeptical arguments as
teaching (social science, and science and society) moments. I do so
in my classes by using social science literature and research as
the way to think about framing, political theory, ideology, social
movements and knowledge claims, etc... It is only when I provide
this context (not when I present my understanding of climate
sciences which end up in point-counterpoint conversations) that my
students are willing to move out of the true-not true trench. Once
I have done the work of presenting enough of the social science on
skepticism, (knowing many of my students are in fact skeptics) I
rarely have much trouble moving on to other parts of climate and
ecological discourse, and I am in the Bible Belt- a pretty
conservative part of the US. It is not always successful but it has
helped me survive teaching environmental politics in this part of
the world! Some of these issues, for those of you interested, are
in my book <Environmental Skepticism: Ecology, Power, and Public
Life> via Ashgate out a few months ago found here: https://
www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?
calcTitle=1&pageSubject=0&title_id=9351&edition_id=10527&page=637&
lang=cy.
As a final note, I am attaching one of my favorite examples of a
different view on climate that adds some depth and concurrence in a
really interesting way (from the WSJ, no less)...
Pete
Peter J. Jacques, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
University of Central Florida
P.O. Box 161356
4000 Central Florida Blvd.
Orlando, FL 32816-1356
Phone: (407) 823-2608
Fax: (407) 823-0051
http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacques
>>> Olivia Bina <olib...@gmail.com> 7/5/2009 4:53 AM >>>
Dear all,
What a great discussion thread. I have noted many thoughts and
readings for the summer. I have also used Deb’s reminder of ‘cherry
picking’ and here is the result:
Howard’s recommendation:
‘I assign Bjorn Lomborg's book which is an easy read and while not
denying climate science, Lomborg assigns different values to the
conclusions. The students appreciate this different perspective in
the course and it is discussed robustly in class’
Susan’s arguments:
‘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.’
‘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… 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... 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’
Wil’s appeal to moral indignation:
‘It also may be that moral indignation, framing this as an issue of
patriotism and our moral responsibility to the most vulnerable of
this generation and generations to come, may be critical to
ultimately changing norms, as was true in the civil rights movement
in this country, the battle against apartheid, etc. I’ve reached a
point where I’m running out of ways to frame this issue that might
prove effective’ Wil
Deb’s concern:
‘As this point this is the best I can do. In some ways we are all
cherry-picking and trying our best to understand what is really
going on. I worry, though, if we will ever understand enough to
come to a rational conclusion. Deb.’
Larry’s question:
‘So many observed phenomena are explained by the theory that it
becomes very, very likely that it is "the" explanation for most of
them. Does it expalin everything? No. Should we be skeptical of
additional claims (as Deb suggests). Yes! Do some slight flaws
negate the whole theory? Not any that have been raised.’
Simon’s reflection:
‘The cultural shift which makes us realise that we are part of a
biosphere we are actively changing, rather than on an earth which
is a given context for human struggles for power and prestige, is
immense’
Based on these cherry picked arguments I’d like to add the
following reflection:
I teach world energy, rather than climate change, which makes me
almost a layperson in the field. It also gives an interesting
perspective to students. By the time we have covered:
- the fantastic (literal) change civilisations have gone
through almost exclusively as a result of the quality (density) of
primary energy sources available to them,
- the unequal distribution of primary energy supply and
demand worldwide,
- the impact (also unequal) that energy-driven technology and
societies have on the local and global environment (I ‘like’ to use
tropical deforestation as the representation of the link between
heaven and earth as they would say in China, between ecosystems and
climate);
- the beautifully consistent growth in energy demand curves
(these somewhat more equal) – past and predicted, and last but not
least
- the share of fossil fuels compared to that of renewables
(especially if you separate these from hydro), and related growth
predictions,
then the importance of scientific certainty as to the reality of
dangerous man-induced climate change, seems somewhat secondary to
the certainties delivered on an annual basis by the GEO assessments
and the 2005 Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (mentioned by Simon
earlier). If energy (our addiction to the fossil fuel version) is
the reason why man might be disrupting natural climate, there is no
doubt that energy is the single enabling factor for the extent of
damage caused by humanity to the biosphere as a whole. (In this
sense I agree with Howard’s reference to Lomborg’s different take
on priorities).
Energy and the impact its use has on the planet gives both moral
and factual certainties, to abuse Suzanne’s phrase, and makes a
discussion and appreciation of moral responsibility (Wil’s point)
so much easier. By taking energy as the entry point, you soon move
to question the growth model based on industrialisation and the
local and global damage it causes. Sitting at a few kilometres from
mainland China I need few reminders of this.
I therefore wonder whether framing the problem in terms of climate
change – the ultimate expression of unsustainable patterns of
growth and humanity’s ‘continuing transformation of the
earth’ (Schellnhuber et al.), has in fact made the pursuit of more
sustainable futures that much harder, and vulnerable to endless
debates on scientific ‘truths’ (which Wil and Larry remind us, are
actually not that uncertain).
But we are on our way to Copenhagen.
Happy Sunday,
Olivia
ps. a quote from Suzanne Duarte which somehow links to Simon’s
point about the shift needed:
‘…people who don’t like the message blame, or ‘shoot,’ the messenger.
The message of ‘hope’ that is demanded by these people is actually
the hope that we don’t have to take responsibility for ourselves
and our world by changing how we live, and with what we preoccupy
ourselves. The hope that many people want is very conditional. They
can only take hope if they are reassured that things will continue
as they have been during this very extraordinary last few decades’.
Suzanne Duarte, Waking Up in a Former Empire at the End of the
Industrial Age
http://dandeliontimes.net/2009/05/waking-up-in-a-former-empire-at-
the-end-of-the-industrial-age/ Posted May 18th, 2009
***********************************************************
Olivia Bina
Assistant Professor, Energy and Sustainable Development
Programme Director, Centre for Strategic Environmental Assessment
for China
Department of Geography and Resource Management
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong S.A.R.
work: (00852) 2609 6647
email: o.c.bina...@cantab.net
skype: oliviabina
***********************************************************
On 5 Jul 2009, at 06:21, Alcock, Frank wrote:
I understand the anger and frustration that is widely felt among
those that are concerned about climate change -- I hold many
similar sentiments. I dont't doubt that the cathartic venting can
be a theraputic exercise. And I realize that some skeptics and
some conservatives are a lost cause -- no evidence or argument
will persuade them to think differently. But there are a number
of key constituencies (in key congressional districts and states)
that are pivotal to passing legislation in the US: blue-collar
dems, moderate republicans and independents of various stripes.
How do each of these constituences "frame" the climate issue and
what types of arguments and associated evidence are likely to
persuade them to support a progressive climate and energy agenda?
I'll refrain from a longwinded answer to this question but would
recommend Drew Westen's The Political Brain for a general take on
how we process information and respond to political arguments and
Tony Leiserowitz' work for a more specific focus on public opinion
associated with climate and energy issues. Suffice it to say that
what appears to be self-righteous indignation and shaming is often
counterproductive. Ditto the doomsday scenarios.
Krugman's anger might have been directed at Congress (it wasn't
just directed at republicans but also dems who voted against the
bill...he seems to have a considerable amount of contempt for
moderate dems if you haven't noticed) but he indirectly labels all
Americans who have doubts about the bill as traitors. Whether or
not you agree with him is one issue. How the folks in key
constituency groups (many of whom are experiencing severe economic
turmoil and associated anxiety) respond is another. I suspect
it'll make them more receptive to liberal environmentalist
caricatures as framed by conservative skeptics.
From: VanDeveer, Stacy [mailto:stacy.vandev...@unh.edu]
Sent: Sat 7/4/2009 2:43 PM
To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net; Alcock, Frank; 'Paul Wapner'
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep-
e...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman'
Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
I agree with Wil on this one. Krugman's anger and contempt are
not aimed all all citizens who are skeptical, but squarely at
Republicans in Congress -- elected in theory to represent people's
interests. Yes, some are representing shorter term economic
interests of their districts. But most, in fact, are working to
do very serious harm to millions of people (Americans and not) and
they don't give a damn and they have offered nothing in the way of
constructive policy ideas. Some anger and contempt for such folks
is not misplaced, in my view...
________________________________________
From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep-
e...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dr. Wil Burns
[williamcgbu...@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 12:29 PM
To: 'Alcock, Frank'; 'Paul Wapner'
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep-
e...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman'
Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Hi Frank,
I actually didn’t find Krugman’s piece as so much smug as
extremely angry, and I have to say it’s exactly how I feel on this
issue, especially when I watch my six-year old playing in the back
yard, or I travel to a small island state, and despair over the
world we’re leaving them to cope with. It may be that liberals
need to rant every now and then about issues of this saliency
purely as a means of catharsis.
Having said that, yes, it doesn’t bring us together, so I’m sure
far sager communicators on this list, such as Susi, would tell me
it’s probably a dumb strategy. However, I wonder if any message
would prove effective with the GOP this year, so maybe catharsis
ain’t a bad thing to pursue at this point. It also may be that
moral indignation, framing this as an issue of patriotism and our
moral responsibility to the most vulnerable of this generation and
generations to come, may be critical to ultimately changing norms,
as was true in the civil rights movement in this country, the
battle against apartheid, etc. I’ve reached a point where I’m
running out of ways to frame this issue that might prove
effective. 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
[cid:image001.gif@01C9FC89.A5A4A640]
<WSJ_com - The Ukukus Wonder Why a Sacred Glacier Melts in Peru's
Andes.htm>
