On the subject of skepticism and its uneven distribution, see the July issue of *Public Understanding of Science* 18(4):
Believing is seeing: laypeople's views of future socio-economic and climate change in England and in Italy Irene Lorenzoni and Mike Hulme Public Understanding of Science 2009;18 383-400 http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/383?etoc What's in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of "climate change" and "global warming" Lorraine Whitmarsh Public Understanding of Science 2009;18 401-420 http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/401?etoc Global warming--global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty Ulrika Olausson Public Understanding of Science 2009;18 421-436 http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/421?etoc adam On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Peter Jacques <pjacq...@mail.ucf.edu> 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<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<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...@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...@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...@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] > > > -- Adam Henne, assistant professor Anthropology and International Studies University of Wyoming Laramie, WY 82071 http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/anthropology/ http://adamhenne.wordpress.com
