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 -- Forwarded message -- From: Dunlap, Riley riley.dun...@okstate.edu Date: Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:22 PM Subject: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu The list, like the prior one of 450 Marc Morano put together for Inhofe, is a joke. You can find a lot of info on it at places like these two: Climate Progess [http://climateprogress.org/] and DeSmog [ http://www.desmogblog.com/]. There are very few legitimate climate scientists on it, and a number of people listed by Morano (who simply grabs names from publications, often quoting folks out of context) have asked to be removed. Riley E. Dunlap Regents Professor Department of Sociology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078 405-744-6108 -- *From:* owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [ owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Hoffman [ shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com] *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:41 PM *To:* gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu *Subject:* Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Dear All – While discussing climate change with ‘skeptics’, I’ve been presented with the following article: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.BlogsContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3 Would love to know how those on this list would respond, since I haven’t crunched the numbers myself. That notwithstanding, my response would probably touch on the following: a) For the record, to play the numbers game for a moment, how many IPCC scientists are in this group of 700? On the other hand, how many IPCC scientists believe that climate change is both a serious problem and human-caused? b) Knowing what I do about Japan, I don’t put an enormous amount of stock in the statement that 90% of participants in a Japan Geoscience Union symposium didn’t believe the IPCC report – the language barrier is large, and cultural factors, e.g., what one might call ‘cultural push-back’ [reflex skepticism], as well as ‘follow the leader’, and the particular nature of this group, may be important here. Quite a bit may have been lost in the translation, so to speak – in both directions. [Also, how many participants were there at this “symposium”?] Yet that is the lead ‘fact’ in the article. c) How many of the 700 are on the payroll of ‘interested parties’? As an interdisciplinary environmental scientist who does carry a healthy degree of skepticism w/ regard to scientific data of all kinds, I do have a certain amount of sympathy with anyone who professes to be skeptical. However, my sense on climate change is that the scientific consensus has become near-overwhelming, and while politics are of course not 100% divorced from this, the data are very compelling. But again, I’m most curious to know what sort of response might come from folks on this list who are much more well informed on this set of issues than I. Best Regards, -- Steven Hoffman, Ph.D. Environmental Consulting and Innovation Bow (Samish Island), WA shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com (360) 720-4378 -- Simon Dalby, Ph.D. Professor, Carleton University www.carleton.ca/~sdalby Co-editor of Geopolitics http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/14650045.asp Author, Security and Environmental Change http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745642918
Analysis of Country-to-Country CDM Permit Trading using the Gravity Model in International Trade
Sorry for cross-postings. You may be interested in the working paper-Wang, H. and J. Firestone, The Analysis of Country-to-Country CDM Permit Trading using the Gravity Model in International Trade,-which is now available for download at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1428437, Comments on the paper are most welcome. An abstract follows. Cheers, Jeremy Abstract: The quality of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is an increasing concern for international community to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions, especially when international community is working towards another GHG reduction agreement. Among other reasons, the CDM has been complained that it favors some particular countries and that the imbalance in the distribution of the CDM has harmed the original purpose of this institutional arrangement. In this paper, we evaluated the current CDM projects based on econometric models in international trade theory and concluded that while the CDM was suffering from such imbalance, the primary determinant of the CDM replied on the total GHG emissions from host and credit countries. They were positively and consistently related to the CDM projects. The degree of openness, infrastructure and colony were important if all CDM projects were considered, but not significant when only accepted projects were included. We calculated that if the degree of openness and the infrastructure increased from 25 percentage to 75 percentage, the host country could attract 73% and 4% more CDM respectively. Our paper showed that the CDM projects distribution did not just imbalance towards some big countries, but a response to current environmental, economic and domestic policy situations. We then discussed these results in the context of policy-based action that might limit or otherwise affect the CDM implementation after the Copenhagen. Jeremy Firestone Associate Professor, College of Marine and Earth Studies Senior Research Scientist, Center for Carbon-free Power Integration University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716 USA 1-302 831-0028 (office) 1-302 831-6838 (fax) j...@udel.edu www.ocean.udel.edu/windpower carbonfree.udel.edu http://www.ocean.udel.edu/people/jf
FW: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
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 [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Simon Dalby [sda...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 9:57 AM To: 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
RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Many thanks to all who responded. Clearly, it could be a full-time job (and almost surely is) to engage in this debate. I'll share the joy one of today's installments, which was 'generously' presented to me: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html The Beat Goes On while The Heat Is On? It might be interesting to expansively compare 'separation of church and state' with 'separation of politics and science.' Steve _ From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dunlap, Riley Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:23 PM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' The list, like the prior one of 450 Marc Morano put together for Inhofe, is a joke. You can find a lot of info on it at places like these two: Climate Progess [http://climateprogress.org/] and DeSmog [http://www.desmogblog.com/]. There are very few legitimate climate scientists on it, and a number of people listed by Morano (who simply grabs names from publications, often quoting folks out of context) have asked to be removed. Riley E. Dunlap Regents Professor Department of Sociology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078 405-744-6108 _ From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Hoffman [shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:41 PM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Dear All - While discussing climate change with 'skeptics', I've been presented with the following article: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.BlogsConten tRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3 ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3 Would love to know how those on this list would respond, since I haven't crunched the numbers myself. That notwithstanding, my response would probably touch on the following: a) For the record, to play the numbers game for a moment, how many IPCC scientists are in this group of 700? On the other hand, how many IPCC scientists believe that climate change is both a serious problem and human-caused? b) Knowing what I do about Japan, I don't put an enormous amount of stock in the statement that 90% of participants in a Japan Geoscience Union symposium didn't believe the IPCC report - the language barrier is large, and cultural factors, e.g., what one might call 'cultural push-back' [reflex skepticism], as well as 'follow the leader', and the particular nature of this group, may be important here. Quite a bit may have been lost in the translation, so to speak - in both directions. [Also, how many participants were there at this symposium?] Yet that is the lead 'fact' in the article. c) How many of the 700 are on the payroll of 'interested parties'? As an interdisciplinary environmental scientist who does carry a healthy degree of skepticism w/ regard to scientific data of all kinds, I do have a certain amount of sympathy with anyone who professes to be skeptical. However, my sense on climate change is that the scientific consensus has become near-overwhelming, and while politics are of course not 100% divorced from this, the data are very compelling. But again, I'm most curious to know what sort of response might come from folks on this list who are much more well informed on this set of issues than I. Best Regards, -- Steven Hoffman, Ph.D. Environmental Consulting and Innovation Bow (Samish Island), WA shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com (360) 720-4378
RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Despite the frustration attendant to grappling with this issue, as someone who teaches a climate change course virtually every semester, I can attest to the fact that devoting a day to the argument of the skeptics is a great teachable moment. First, whether we want to admit it or not, a third to a half of our students are probably climate skeptics (really); many won't admit it because of the orthodoxy our field often imposes, but they are. So we blithely dismiss the skeptics at our own peril (maybe it doesn't happen in your fields, but law professors usually say why teach them about this stuff; the issue is settled). Second, even if our students don't buy the arguments of the skeptics, it's critical to grapple with these arguments if they want to be able to clearly articulate to others why skeptic constructs are misguided, and grappling with the issues is a great way to foster active learning. Third, it's a great way to introduce broader issues, including the role of peer review in the scientific process, how scientific findings are mediated by the political process, and why society still chooses to act sometimes in the face of substantial scientific uncertainty. Thanks for some great new suggestions in this context from the list! 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 Steve Hoffman Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 10:04 AM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Many thanks to all who responded. Clearly, it could be a full-time job (and almost surely is) to engage in this debate. I'll share the joy one of today's installments, which was 'generously' presented to me: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html The Beat Goes On while The Heat Is On? It might be interesting to expansively compare 'separation of church and state' with 'separation of politics and science.' Steve _ From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dunlap, Riley Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:23 PM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' The list, like the prior one of 450 Marc Morano put together for Inhofe, is a joke. You can find a lot of info on it at places like these two: Climate Progess [http://climateprogress.org/] and DeSmog [http://www.desmogblog.com/]. There are very few legitimate climate scientists on it, and a number of people listed by Morano (who simply grabs names from publications, often quoting folks out of context) have asked to be removed. Riley E. Dunlap Regents Professor Department of Sociology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078 405-744-6108 _ From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Hoffman [shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:41 PM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Dear All - While discussing climate change with 'skeptics', I've been presented with the following article: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.BlogsConten tRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3 ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3 Would love to know how those on this list would respond, since I haven't crunched the numbers myself. That notwithstanding, my response would probably touch on the following: a) For the record, to play the numbers game for a moment, how many IPCC scientists are in this group of 700? On the other hand, how many IPCC scientists believe that climate change is both a serious problem and human-caused? b) Knowing what I do about Japan, I don't put an enormous amount of stock in the statement that 90% of participants in a Japan Geoscience Union symposium didn't believe the IPCC report - the language barrier is large, and cultural factors, e.g., what one might call 'cultural push-back' [reflex skepticism], as well as 'follow the leader', and the particular nature of this group, may be important here. Quite a bit may have been lost in the translation, so to speak - in both directions. [Also, how many participants were there at this symposium?] Yet that is the lead 'fact' in the article. c) How many of the 700 are on the payroll of 'interested parties'? As an interdisciplinary environmental scientist who does carry a healthy degree of skepticism w/ regard to scientific data of all kinds, I do have a certain amount of sympathy with anyone who professes to be
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 [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Simon Dalby [sda...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 9:57 AM To: 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
RE: FW: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
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 [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Simon Dalby [sda...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 9:57 AM To: 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
Re: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
As someone who teaches contemporary environmental debates where a certain level of engagement on this issue is expected, I still don't see a need to play on the field of the skeptics with such overwhelming science and the national and international debate where it is. I often describe the evolution of the debate to the class up to the 4th IPCC and that becomes the starting point of the discussion of the contemporary debate (North-South perspectives, carbon trading/carbon tax, climate as a security threat, etc.). That said, I agree with Wil that students often have doubts and feel the full debate has not been presented to them. To address this, 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. Howard S. Schiffman, J.D., LL.M., Ph.D. - Original Message - From: Dr. Wil Burns williamcgbu...@comcast.net Date: Friday, July 3, 2009 1:36 pm Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' To: 'Steve Hoffman' shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com, gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Despite the frustration attendant to grappling with this issue, as someone who teaches a climate change course virtually every semester, I can attest to the fact that devoting a day to the argument of the skeptics is a great teachable moment. First, whether we want to admit it or not, a third to a half of our students are probably climate skeptics (really); many won't admit it because of the orthodoxy our field often imposes, but they are. So we blithely dismiss the skeptics at our own peril (maybe it doesn't happen in your fields, but law professors usually say why teach them about this stuff; the issue is settled). Second, even if our students don't buy the arguments of the skeptics, it's critical to grapple with these arguments if they want to be able to clearly articulate to others why skeptic constructs are misguided, and grappling with the issues is a great way to foster active learning. Third, it's a great way to introduce broader issues, including the role of peer review in the scientific process, how scientific findings are mediated by the political process, and why society still chooses to act sometimes in the face of substantial scientific uncertainty. Thanks for some great new suggestions in this context from the list! 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 Steve Hoffman Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 10:04 AM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Many thanks to all who responded. Clearly, it could be a full-time job (and almost surely is) to engage in this debate. I'll share the joy one of today's installments, which was 'generously' presented to me: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html The Beat Goes On while The Heat Is On? It might be interesting to expansively compare 'separation of church and state' with 'separation of politics and science.' Steve _ From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dunlap, Riley Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:23 PM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' The list, like the prior one of 450 Marc Morano put together for Inhofe, is a joke. You can find a lot of info on it at places like these two: Climate Progess [http://climateprogress.org/] and DeSmog [http://www.desmogblog.com/]. There are very few legitimate climate scientists on it, and a number of people listed by Morano (who simply grabs names from publications, often quoting folks out of context) have asked to be removed. Riley E. Dunlap Regents Professor Department of Sociology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078 405-744-6108 _ From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Hoffman [shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:41 PM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Dear All - While discussing climate change with 'skeptics', I've been presented with the following article:
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
RE: FW: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
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
Re: FW: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
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
RE: FW: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
i think there is at least one additional dimension that is a valuable component of the teaching . . . the dimension that i hope is covered in hulme's book . . . why do people believe what they believe about climate change . . . i think that part of the answer to that lies in the dimension of rhetoric, as moser points out . . . i agree with her that rhetoric is one dimension of what is teachable about climate change . . . the dimension that i would add to the discussion is the dimension of social structure and process . . . dunlap mentioned this, but i would make it more explicit and push it farther . . . some of the discussion of the social has been very structural -- culture, science . . . dunlap's work does a good job of identifying different types of actors . . . for me the dimension that is very teachable involves how these different types of actors work together and use rhetoric to produce particular outcomes . . . the term i like for this dimension is agency . . . how do actors with different interests use resources and structures and science and culture to produce outcomes that favor their interests . . . how do actors who believe that their interests would be harmed by carbon caps use their financial resources to support think tanks that retain scholars with particular viewpoints who are willing to be the public face of skepticism . . . cheers, craig craig k harris department of sociology michigan agricultural experiment station national food safety and toxicology center institute for food and agriculture standards food safety policy center michigan state university -Original Message- From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Susanne Moser Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 2:55 PM 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
RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Interesting discussion. Krugman takes issue with skeptics in congress. His views are not news but a nice context for the discussion: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html Paul Wapner Associate Professor Director, Global Environmental Politics Program School of International Service American University 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington DC 20016 (202) 885-1647
