dear kate (et al), i was lecturing in brazil a couple of weeks ago and the 'is it really true' question came up with surprising frequency. turns out that a very prestigious figure, the former rector of the university of brazilia, is a climate change denier. there have been strong replies to him in the brazilian media, but nevertheless his influence seems to have kept the doubts alive.
all best, dale ********************** Dale Jamieson Director of Environmental Studies Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy Affiliated Professor of Law Environmental Studies Program New York University 285 Mercer Street, 901 New York NY 10003-6653 Voice 212-998-5429 Fax 212-995-4157 http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/object/dalejamieson.html "Intellectuals are reliable lagging indicators, near infallible guides to what used to be true."--Charles R. Morris ----- Original Message ----- From: Kate O'Neill <kone...@nature.berkeley.edu> Date: Sunday, July 5, 2009 1:18 pm Subject: Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' To: Peter Jacques <pjacq...@mail.ucf.edu> Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu > 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> >
