RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
I'm enjoying the thread and hope it continues. Per the Krugman editorial, I'd love to hear some reactions. IMHO, I think it appeals to a narrowing portion of the American electorate while generating a dismissive reaction (as well as a few guffaws) from key constituencies that are on the fence regarding Waxman-Markey. My own sense is that the chances of a climate bill passing the Senate (that includes title III -- the cap and trade program) areincreasingly remote this year. There is a renewed wave of recycled skepticclaims attacking climate science, to be sure, but thereis also afusillade of arguments regarding multiple aspects of the bill that seem to be gaining traction. I just don't see 60 yea votes in the Senate happening. As for the arguments against the bill I realize that many are bogus but some raise legitimate concerns. Krugman's rant comes across as smug, obstinate, and somewhat out-of-touch, playing right into the stereotype of liberals that conservatives are trying to project. I don't doubt that Marc Morano was all smiles when he read it. Frank Alcock Associate Professor of Political Science New College of Florida 5800 Bay Shore Road Sarasota, FL 34243 (941) 487-4483 (phone) (941) 487-4475 (fax) From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu on behalf of Paul WapnerSent: Fri 7/3/2009 11:04 PMTo: williamcgbu...@comcast.netCc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman'Subject: 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 WapnerAssociate ProfessorDirector, Global Environmental Politics ProgramSchool of International ServiceAmerican University4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington DC 20016(202) 885-1647
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 Williams Purple Cow From: Alcock, Frank [mailto:falc...@ncf.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 7:45 AM To: Paul Wapner; williamcgbu...@comcast.net Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; Steve Hoffman Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' I'm enjoying the thread and hope it continues. Per the Krugman editorial, I'd love to hear some reactions. IMHO, I think it appeals to a narrowing portion of the American electorate while generating a dismissive reaction (as well as a few guffaws) from key constituencies that are on the fence regarding Waxman-Markey. My own sense is that the chances of a climate bill passing the Senate (that includes title III -- the cap and trade program) are increasingly remote this year. There is a renewed wave of recycled skeptic claims attacking climate science, to be sure, but there is also a fusillade of arguments regarding multiple aspects of the bill that seem to be gaining traction. I just don't see 60 yea votes in the Senate happening. As for the arguments against the bill I realize that many are bogus but some raise legitimate concerns. Krugman's rant comes across as smug, obstinate, and somewhat out-of-touch, playing right into the stereotype of liberals that conservatives are trying to project. I don't doubt that Marc Morano was all smiles when he read it. Frank Alcock Associate Professor of Political Science New College of Florida 5800 Bay Shore Road Sarasota, FL 34243 (941) 487-4483 (phone) (941) 487-4475 (fax) _ From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu on behalf of Paul Wapner Sent: Fri 7/3/2009 11:04 PM To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman' Subject: 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 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 image001.gif
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] From: Alcock, Frank [mailto:falc...@ncf.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 7:45 AM To: Paul Wapner; williamcgbu...@comcast.net Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; Steve Hoffman Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' I'm enjoying the thread and hope it continues. Per the Krugman editorial, I'd love to hear some reactions. IMHO, I think it appeals to a narrowing portion of the American electorate while generating a dismissive reaction (as well as a few guffaws) from key constituencies that are on the fence regarding Waxman-Markey. My own sense is that the chances of a climate bill passing the Senate (that includes title III -- the cap and trade program) are increasingly remote this year. There is a renewed wave of recycled skeptic claims attacking climate science, to be sure, but there is also a fusillade of arguments regarding multiple aspects of the bill that seem to be gaining traction. I just don't see 60 yea votes in the Senate happening. As for the arguments against the bill I realize that many are bogus but some raise legitimate concerns. Krugman's rant comes across as smug, obstinate, and somewhat out-of-touch, playing right into the stereotype of liberals that conservatives are trying to project. I don't doubt that Marc Morano was all smiles when he read it. Frank Alcock Associate Professor of Political Science New College of Florida 5800 Bay Shore Road Sarasota, FL 34243 (941) 487-4483 (phone) (941) 487-4475 (fax) From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu on behalf of Paul Wapner Sent: Fri 7/3/2009 11:04 PM To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman' Subject: 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.htmlhttp://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
Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Reading this debate, I was reminded again of an excellent article I read back in March on Freeman Dyson (see below). I, personally, have always thought of myself as a skeptic - not of global warming but its global and local effects. I often find my skepticism scary, given the fact that I am somewhat educated and also an educator. But, at the same time, I also find it disturbing when almost any kind of natural disaster starts getting blamed on global warming. I have noticed that voicing these internal doubts aloud in my classrooms made my students more acceptable of global warming (but it could be biased group). But, more importantly, I want to pass on the habit of being critical about every little piece of information that comes your way. 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. Climate-change specialists often speak of global warming as a matter of moral conscience. Dyson says he thinks they sound presumptuous. As he warned that day four years ago at Boston University, the history of science is filled with those who make confident predictions about the future and end up believing their predictions, and he cites examples of things people anticipated to the point of terrified certainty that never actually occurred, ranging from hellfire, to Hitler's atomic bomb, to the Y2K millennium bug. It's always possible Hansen could turn out to be right, he says of the climate scientist. If what he says were obviously wrong, he wouldn't have achieved what he has. But Hansen has turned his science into ideology. He's a very persuasive fellow and has the air of knowing everything. He has all the credentials. I have none. I don't have a Ph.D. He's published hundreds of papers on climate. I haven't. By the public standard he's qualified to talk and I'm not. But I do because I think I'm right. I think I have a broad view of the subject, which Hansen does not. I think it's true my career doesn't depend on it, whereas his does. I never claim to be an expert on climate. I think it's more a matter of judgement than knowledge. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html something similar: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090630/ts_alt_afp/scienceusreligionevolution_20090630134058
Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
As a natural scientist, I wanted to weigh in on this. The key for me was the predictive and explanatory power of global warming theory. This is the strength of any successful scientific hypothesis. 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. What disturbs me most, I guess, is the failure of the public to understand that scientific knowledge is incomplete and evolving. As new data is gathered, we alter our hypotheses accordingly. This means that there may be some apparent contradictions. Did we say one thing 15 years ago and the opposite now? Could be, but we know a whole lot more now. Furthermore, as we gain knowledge, our explanations become better and more likely. These are complex concepts, I know. However, if I could, with a magic wand, teach the public anything, it would be how science actually works: how hypotheses are generated and tested, what the role of the skeptic is, how scientific consensus is reached and what that means-not a democratic vote but rather a consensus of many scientists from many related fields that an hypothesis is successful at explaining a wide variety of observations. I very much appreciate this discussion and hope to see more comments on this thread. Larry Davis * R. Laurence Davis, Ph.D. Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences University Research Scholar Department of Biology and Environmental Sciences University of New Haven 300 Boston Post Road West Haven, Connecticut 06516 rlda...@newhaven.edu Office: 203-932-7108Fax: 203-931-6097 UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN- A Leader in Experiential Education *
Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Folks: A slightly different take picking up from Larry Davis' post and thinking through framing rather than anger ... Science doesn't explain everything, and the huge problem with framing climate change as an either or, right wrong matter is precisely that it pretends science is something it plainly and simply isn't. Framing what matters as only climate change too is also a problem because other changes are part of the mix. Media stories blaming climate change for every disaster are obviously silly, but nonetheless it seems clear that greater instabilities in the climate system are to be expected as GHGs increase and other ecological shifts happen simultaneously. If you will please all forgive my flagrant self promotion here for a minute, the little book I sent a note around about yesterday was in part designed to re-frame, or as I usually prefer to put matters, re-contextualise this debate. It does so by trying to link environmental history, current thinking about earth system science (which includes climate change of course but is about more than that) and the literature on vulnerability, which is crucial for understanding who dies in disasters. I am trying to find a simple vocabulary to explain to students how we collectively have taken our fate into our own hands without necessarily realising we have in fact done this. The new forcing mechanisms in the biosphere are urban industrial production systems that literally turn rocks into air, which is what fossil fuel consumption is doing. As new geological actors we set things in motion which impact humanity in the increasingly artificial ecologies of the urban settings we now live in. State boundaries frequently get in the way of seeing these processes clearly. This all cuts right across the human/natural science divides that so stymie creative thinking. Industrial production decisions have geological effects; infrastructure provision is effectively applied geomorphology. We haven't really got a clear understanding of globalization as a physical process but its moving vast amounts of material around in the biosphere. The habitat loss consequences of all this are profound too as the MA folks, and the GEO4 folks documented in great detail. Politics is at the heart of this, but politics understood in the classical sense of how collective decisions about how we all ought to live together, and makes rules for this living, rather than partizan yelling/competing for office, are really difficult because who decides what kind of planet our great grandchildren will inherit is what GEP is all about. 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. But shifting from physics metaphors to ecological ones (not old environmental notions of preserving what was taken to be stable) is key to all this and the next generation of students has to be prodded, inspired, stimulated to start thinking in these terms. We don't know what the future will be; science can't tell us, but what we do know is that we are making it, literally by our economic actions, our production decisions, and the kind of infrastructure we provide and the buildings we design and make. All of which may make things worse or better in many complicated ways. Its about thinking about the consequences of actions; a theme which ironically sometimes resonates rather well with right wing thinkers. But until we can shift the contextualisations away from autonomous individuals separate from everything else to a comprehension of us as interconnected biosphere beings, the connection to consequences remains difficult. But then since when was teaching either environment or politics easy!? Hope this rant helps a little ... Simon On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM, rldavis rlda...@newhaven.edu wrote: As a natural scientist, I wanted to weigh in on this. The key for me was the predictive and explanatory power of global warming theory. This is the strength of any successful scientific hypothesis. 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. What disturbs me most, I guess, is the failure of the public to understand that scientific knowledge is incomplete and evolving. As new data is gathered, we alter our hypotheses accordingly. This means that there may be some apparent contradictions. Did we say one thing 15 years ago and the opposite now? Could be, but we know a whole lot more now. Furthermore, as we gain knowledge, our explanations become better and more likely. These are complex concepts, I know. However, if I could, with a magic wand, teach the public anything, it would
Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
To add to some of the threads above... In all this talk about framing, it's important to remember the difference between the psychological term and how it's used by political scientists. Originally, framing referred to the set of stereotypes that an individual uses to interpret information and experience into action (or inaction). Political scientists use the words framing and reframing interchangeably to refer to attempts by some (usually be elite groups) to alter the frames used by others (usually the public, although in this case, it seems we're really discussing inter-elite reframing of issues). In this, people are bound to be frustrated because of the many types of cognitive biases that inhibit individuals from changing their frames (or stereotypes). There's everything from conservatism bias (not to be confused with conservative political views, this is the proven tendancy for individuals to discard information that counters prior beliefs even if its true and accept information that shores up prior beliefs even if its false) to group polarization (get a bunch of moderates together and they'll end up with more extreme beliefs) to group attribution error (the mistaken belief that outgroup behaviors are a result of personality rather than circumstances). Furthermore, these biases can feedback onto one another, magnifying the degree of polarization among groups. Combine this with post-hoc rationalization once a decision has been made, and you've got a path dependent processes of polarization that is incredebly potent. (just consider the recent news-worthy examples provided by the legislatures of CA and NY). Long story short, people are not rational (ourselves included) and we don't changes our minds easily, especially when our opinions are backed by group as well as individual identities. If we get 'em young, before their frames have solidified (usually happens by early 20s) then what psychologists call frame-realignment can be easier. But once people reach adulthood it's very difficult. Argumentation (in the classic sense of the world) can work, particularly if we are just trying to bridge, amplify, or extend current frames, but for a transformation to take place there usually needs to be a highly available (vivid and salient) event that literally shocks people into frame transformation. Or, with something as complex as climate change, it may take many events. All this is frustrating, but it is the nature of the beast. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to reframe the debate (I'll second Ron Larry's statements about clarifying the scientific method and role of science here), just that we should take it all with a grain of salt. Personally, I find that understanding the underlying psychology helps me to keep my own head when engaged in such debates and also lets me know when an individual is really arguing their emotional attachment to an idea rather than its underlying logic. Plus, I find the social-science implications of it all to be absolutely fascinating. livwell, dgwebster On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Simon Dalby sda...@gmail.com wrote: Folks: A slightly different take picking up from Larry Davis' post and thinking through framing rather than anger ... Science doesn't explain everything, and the huge problem with framing climate change as an either or, right wrong matter is precisely that it pretends science is something it plainly and simply isn't. Framing what matters as only climate change too is also a problem because other changes are part of the mix. Media stories blaming climate change for every disaster are obviously silly, but nonetheless it seems clear that greater instabilities in the climate system are to be expected as GHGs increase and other ecological shifts happen simultaneously. If you will please all forgive my flagrant self promotion here for a minute, the little book I sent a note around about yesterday was in part designed to re-frame, or as I usually prefer to put matters, re-contextualise this debate. It does so by trying to link environmental history, current thinking about earth system science (which includes climate change of course but is about more than that) and the literature on vulnerability, which is crucial for understanding who dies in disasters. I am trying to find a simple vocabulary to explain to students how we collectively have taken our fate into our own hands without necessarily realising we have in fact done this. The new forcing mechanisms in the biosphere are urban industrial production systems that literally turn rocks into air, which is what fossil fuel consumption is doing. As new geological actors we set things in motion which impact humanity in the increasingly artificial ecologies of the urban settings we now live in. State boundaries frequently get in the way of seeing these processes clearly. This all cuts right across the human/natural science divides that so stymie creative thinking.
