Apologies for the extra e-mail. Apparently the attachment didn't make it to everyone, so here's the url:
http://scp.earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/ReGreen%20Exec%20Summary.pdf dgwebster ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: DG Webster <dgweb...@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM Subject: Re: FW: Skepticism and all that To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Earth Justice did some interesting survey work that reveals a relationship between a variation of the "high falutin'" ideas that Ronnie put forward and the "outside the bubble" opinions observed by Wil. It seems that a person's perspectives regarding the role of the individual in society have a lot to do with the type of information they'll accept regarding climate change. One facet of their results showed that people who are more individualistic (Ronnie's liberal individualists) tend to be wary of environmental science and, perhaps more importantly, the implications for public policy. They are therefore much more likely to accept what the skeptics have to say than the consensus science (Wil's arguments from cab drivers). It's these types of "frames" that I eluded to in my earlier note and, being a fairly lonely liberal in a large and pretty conservative family, I can attest to the linkage from first hand, non-ivory tower expirience. Since their results are much more nuanced than the short explanation above, I've attached a summary by Earthjustice, which may be slanted but is certainly interesting. I use it in my green business class to get students thinking about the many ways in which people view (or frame) environmental issues like climate change. Plus they've decided to make the data publically available upon request, which some might find to be useful. Mike, I hope this is an OK use of the list! livwell, dgwebster On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Dr. Wil Burns <williamcgbu...@comcast.net>wrote: > > Hey Ronnie, > > > I can't say I agree with you as to how we confront this issue, or your > premises about science's role on this issue. I think many of us live in an > academic bubble (not to mention an ideological bubble for folks like you in > the 'Cruz and me in Berkeley). However, when you talk to folks outside the > confines of these bubbles many of them aren't resistant to climate change > policy on such high falutin' grounds, such that climate policy would > undermine "liberal individualism" but because: a. They have heard some of > allegedly science-based arguments of the skeptics (especially several I've > talked about in previous messages, i.e. that temperatures allegedly haven't > been increasing for the past ten years and that increases in carbon dioxide > in the paleoclimatic record actually occurs 600-700 years AFTER > temperatures > increase, which means that causation is the reverse of what we assert. I > have heard those arguments from cab drivers taking me back to the airport > from climate change conferences, as well as folks in my gym watching > television at the stairmaster next to me) and b. As a consequence, they > believe that climate change is a hoax and they don't want to make the > sacrifices necessary to address what they feel is a non-problem. > > If we continue to frame this issue in terms of more grandiose theories, I > believe we'll lose in the public forum. I take your point that science is > always rhetorically mediated; however, we premise our call for action to > address climate change not on the basis of our embrace of "liberal > collectivism," but rather because we believe that the SCIENCE, albeit > freighted with uncertainties intrinsic to this discipline, justifies taking > action. We can't have it both ways, which is why when Chris Matthews is > screaming at Dana Rohrbacher for allegedly being "anti-science" when the > guy > is proffering obstensibly science-based arguments it's Matthews that looks > stupid. Yes, we have to explain the underlying values that justify our > position, and yes, we have to realize the limits of science, but in the > end, > proving the science is both the most ethical, and effective, means of > engendering public support for climate policy. > > 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: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu > [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Ronnie > Lipschutz > Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:51 AM > To: undisclosed-recipients: > Subject: Skepticism and all that > > Dear All: > > I've tried to keep up with this exchange, and I am a bit surprised it > has generated so much interest. Forgive me if I restate the obvious > below--I am pretty sure someone has already made these points. > > 1. Science is not TRUTH. Science generates truths that are very > dependent on the assumptions and analytical methods that go into > research ("black boxing," in Bruno Latour's words). Science is also > premised on radical skepticism, in terms of what constitutes "proof." > From this, I take the point that one should be careful about basing a > case on Science. > > 2. Science can tell us what could happen; it cannot tell us what we > should do. Science can tell me what will happen if I step off a cliff; > it cannot prevent me from stepping off the cliff (only I can do that). > We are free to burn in hell, if we wish. There are no more transcendent > sources of authority to tell us what we must do, although there are many > who would like to re-establish such a source. > > 3. Ultimately, acting on climate change requires as much a collective > ethical-spiritual-normative shift as evidence that we will burn. That > means Politics. > > 4. Finally, we should probably not get too bogged down in the > theological details. I am reminded that one of the central points of > conflict during the 30 years war was on the nature of > transubstantiation: were the wine and wafer actually part of Jesus's > body (signified) or were they representative of his body (signifiers). > We ought to recognize that there is a much more fundamental point of > conflict here than climate, having to do with liberal individualism vs. > liberal collectivism (something of a neologism, I realize). Whether > this implies a shift away from profit-oriented capitalism and private > property to something more social(ist) is as yet unclear. We should > figure out what the signified is rather than argue about the signifier > (climate change). > > Ronnie > > -- > > Ronnie D. Lipschutz, Professor of Politics, 234 Crown College > UC-Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA > Phone: (831) 459-3275; Email: rlip...@ucsc.edu; > Web: http://people.ucsc.edu/~rlipsch <http://people.ucsc.edu/%7Erlipsch>; > > -- D.G. Webster, PhD Lecturer Environmental Studies Program University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-0372 http://wrigley.usc.edu/research/webster.html -- D.G. Webster, PhD Lecturer Environmental Studies Program University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-0372 http://wrigley.usc.edu/research/webster.html
